ML20197C353

Forwards Biweekly Fr Notice Re Applications & Amends to OLs Involving NSHCs for Period Through 861022.Hearing Requests & Comments Must Be Received by 861121

ML20197C353
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	11/04/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8611060084
Download: ML20197C353 (28)

Text

~ '

.,r .

.n e' ~

. DISTRIBUTION Docket File November 4. 1986 c:heceF.P9R DOCKET NO(D). 50-295 and 50-304 C. Vogan w/o encl PDf3 Rdg. w/o encl J. Norris w/o encl see attached list of addressees

SUBJECT:

ZION NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility are. transmitted for your information.

O Notice of Receipt of Application, dated O Draft / Final Environmental Statment, dated .

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

O Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No. , dated O Notice of Hear:ng on Application for Construction Permit, dated .

O Notice of Consideration of issuance of Facility Operating License, dated .

O Monthly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses involving no Significant Hazards Considerations, dated O Application and Safety Analysis Report, Volume O Amendment No. to Application /SAR dated .

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

~

O Facility Operating License No. , Amendment No. , dated' -

O Order Extending Construction Completion Date, dated fE Other(Specifv)__Bi-Weekly Notice covering period through October'22,1986. Expiration '

IM Cte for hearino requests and comuments; November 21. 1986.

~ Division of 9WR Licensing - A Office of Nuclear Reactor ReguFation

Enclosures:

As stated cc:

See nest page PDf3 8611060084 861104 PDR i P ADOCK 05000295 PDR CVogan-11/4/86

,)

v 4 m

Y ,-

37502 Federal Registir / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wednesday. October 22. 1986 / Notices NUCLEAR REGULATORY Comments should be addressed to the litigated in the matter, and the bases for COMMISSION Rules and IYocedures Branch, Division each contention set forth with of Rules and Records. Office of reasonable specificity. Contentions shall Bi-Weekty Notice; Applications and Administration. U. S. Nuclear be limited to matters within the scope of Amendments To Operating Licenses Regulatory Commission. Washington, the amendment under consideration. A involving No Sigr.ificant Hazards DC 20555, and should cite the petitioner who fails to file such a Considerations publication date and page number of supplement which satisfies these I. Background this Federal Register notice. requirements with respect to at least one By November 21.1986 the licensee contention will not be permitted to Pursuant to Public Law (Pub. L) 9'- may file a request for a hearing with participate as a party.

415. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission respect toissuance of the amendment to Those permitted to intervene become (the Commission)is publishing this the subject facility operating license and parties to the proceeding, subject to any regular bi-weekly notice. Pub. L 97-.415 any person whose interest may be limitations in the order granting leave to revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy affected by this proceeding and who intervene, and have the opportunity to Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), to wishes to participate as a party in the participate fully in the conduct of the require the Commission to publish proceeding must file a written petition hearing, includmg the oppcrtunity to notice of any amendments issued or for leave to intervene. Requests for a present evidence and cross examine proposed to be issued. under a new hearing and petitions for leave to witnesses.

provision of section189 of the Act.This intervene shall be filed in accordance If a hearing is requested, the provision grants the Commission the with the Commission's " Rules of Commission will make a final authority to issue and make immediately Practice for Domestic Licensing determination on the issue of no effective any amendment to an Proceedings"in 10 CFR Part 2. If a significant hazards consideration. ne operating license upon a determination request for a hearing or petition for by the Commission that such final determination will serve to decide leave to intervene is filed by the above when the hearing is held.

amendment involves no significant date, the Commission or an Atomic hazards coralderation, notwithstanding if the final determination is that the Safety and Licensing Board, designated amendment request involves no the pendency before the Commission of. by the Commission or by the Chairtnan significant hazards consideration, the a request for a hearing from any person. of the Atomic Safety and Licensing This bi-weekly notice includes all Commission may issue the amendment Board Panel. will rule on the request and make it immediately effective, l amendments i,ssaed or proposed to be and/or petition and the Secretary or the issued, since the date of publication of notwithstanding the request for a designated Atomic Safety and Licensing hearing. Any hearing held would take the last bi-weekly notice which was Board willissue a notice of hearing or published on October 8.1986 (31 FR place afterissuance of the amendment.

an appropriate order.

30081) through October 10.1986. As required by 10 CFR 2.714 a If the final determination is that the petition for leave to mtervene shall set amendment involves a significant NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF hazards consideration, any hearing held ISSUANCE Or AMENDMENTTO f rth with particularity the mterest of would take place before the issuance of FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND the petitioner in the proceeding, and PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT how that interest may be affected by the any amendment.

Normally, the Commission will not ilAZARDS CONSIDERATION results of the proceeding;The petition issue the amendment until the DETERMINATION AND should specifically explata the reasons w inte e on shoul rmitted expiration of the 30-day notice period.

OPPORTUNITY FOR llEARING flowever, should circumstances change The Commission has made a proposed following factors:(1) the nature of the during the notice penod such that failure determination that the following petitioner's right under the Act to be to act in a timely way would result, for amendment requests involve no made a party to the proceeding: (2) the example, m, derating or shutdown of the significant hazards consideration. Under nature and extent of the petitioner's facility, the Commission may issue the the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR property, financial, or other in'erest in license amendment before the 50.92, this means that operation of the the proceeding: and (3) the possible expiration of the 30-day notice period, facility in accordance with the proposed effect of any order which may be provided that its final determination is amendments would not (1) involve a entered in the proceeding on the that the amendment involves no significant increase in the probability or petitioner's interest. The petition should sigmficant hazards consideration. The consequences of an accident previously also identify the specific aspect (s) of the final determination will consider all evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of subject matter of the proceeding as to pubh,c and State comments received a new or different kind of accident from which petitioner wishes to intervene. before action is taken. Should the any accident previously evaluated: or (3) Any person who has filed a petition for Commission take this action,it will ,

involve a significant reduction in a leave to intervene or who has been publish a notice ofissuance and provide )

margin of safety.The basis for this admitted as a party may amend the for opportunity for a hearing after proposed determination for each petition without requesting leave of the issuance. The Commission expects that amendment request is shown below. Board up to fifteen (151 days prior to the the need to take this action will occur The Commission is seeking public first prehearing conference scheduled in very infrequently.

comments on this proposed the proceeding. but such an amended A request for a hearing or a petition determination. Any comments received petition must satisfy the specificity for leave to intervene must be filed with within 30 days after the date of requirements described above. the Secretary of the Commission. U.S.

publication of this notice will be Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, considered in making any final the first prehearing conference Washington. DC 20555. Attention:

detei mination. The Commission will not scheduled in the proceeding. a petitioner Docketing and Service Branch, or may normally make a final determination shall file a supplement to the petition to be delivered to the Commission's Public unless it receives a request for a intervene which must include a list of Document Room.1717 H Street. NW hearing. the contentions which are sought to be Washington, DC. by the above date.

4 s* cf 4

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices 37503 Where petitions are filed durms the last bases for the proposed TS change will accident previously evaluated would not ten (10) days of the notice period, it is not be used to alter the cu. rent seem probable.The same acceptance requested that the petitioner promptly so requirement that all safety-related confidence level would seem to exist as inform the Commission by a toll-free snubbers be operable or as justifiestion currently exists in Farley TS's; (2) The telephone call to Western Union at (800) to allow a snubber to remain in an possibihty of a new or dtiferent kind of 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700). inoperable condition. Furthermore, the accident from any accident pre <iously The Western Union operator should be conservative TS requirement to visually evaluated would not seern probable given Datagram Identification Number inspect 100% of the safety-related since no change to the physical number 3737 and the following message snubbers will not be altered. of snubbers is being considered.Thus, addressed to(Pmiect Director): The licensee has reviewed the existing design integrity, where petitioner's name and telephone requirements of 10 CFR 50.92 as they snubcers are involved, is not changed; number; date petition was mailed; plant relate to the proposed change to the and (3) The change would not involve a name; and publication date and page snubber visual inspection requirements significant reduction to the existing number of this Federal Registee notice. and considers the proposed change not margin of safety since the actions A copy of the petition should also be to involve a significant hazards required for failures of snubbers la sent to the Office of the General consideration. In support of this essentially unchanged. Therefore, the Counsel-Bethesda. U.S. Nuclear conclusion, the licensee's analysis is Commission proposes that a no Regulatory Commission. Wasttington, restated as follows: significant hazard consideration is in DC 20555. and to the attorney for the (1) The proposed change will not order for these changes pending licensee. significantly increase the probability or completion of our detailed evaluation.

Nontimely filings of petitions for leave consequences of an accident previously Loco /Public Document Room to intervene, amended petitions, evaluated because the existing snubber locotion: George S.11ouston Memorial supplemental petitions and/or requests operability requirements will remain Library. 212 W. Burdeshaw Street, for hearing will not be entertained intact and the proposed visual Dothan. Alabama 36303.

absent a determination by the inspection requirements will effectively Attorneyforlicensee: Ernest L Blake.

Commis. ion, the presiding officer or the verify snubber system reliability. Esquire. 2300 N Street. NW.,

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing (2) The proposed change will not Washington, DC 20037 Board, that the petition and/or request create the possibility of a new or should be granted based upon a different kind of accident from any NRCPmfect Dimetor Lester S.

balancing of factors specified in 10 CFR accident previously evaluated because Rubenstein.

2.714(a)(1)(iHv) and 2.714(d). the change will not alter plant Arizona Public Service Company et al, For further details with respect to this configuration or mode of operation. Docket No. STN 50-528. Palo Verde action. see the application for (3) The proposed change will not Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS),

amendment which is available for public involve a significant reduction to the Unit No.1, Maricopa County, Arizona inspection at the Commission's Public margin of safety because the Document Room.171711 Street. NW., combination of visualinspection DateofAmendmentRequest August Washington, DC. and at the local public intervals which maintain a 95% 21.1984 document room for the particular facility confidence that at least 90% of all De8CriP tion ofAmendmentRequese involved. safety-related snubbers are operable at The propo, sed amendment would modify all times along with the required the Techmcal Specifications (Append:x Alabama Power Company, Docket Nos. A to Facility Operating License No.

functional testing of safety-related 50-348 and 50-364. Joseph M. Farley NPF-41 for PVNGS Unit 1), for the snubbers will provide adequate Nuclear Plant. Unit Nos.1 and 2' assurance that the snubber system will following Surveillance Requirements:

llouston County, Alabama 4.6.4.3.f. 4.7.7.f. 4.7.8J. and 4.9.12.f. These adequately perfonn its intended Date ofomerdments request function. surveillance requirements relate to the September 2.1986. We have reviewed the licensee's charcoal adsorbers within the Description of amendments request analysis and agree with it. In addition, containment hydrogen purge system the The proposed changes would modify the the Commission has provided examples control room essential filtration system, visualinspection requirements for of amendments considered not likely to the Engineered Safety Features (ESP)

Technical Specifications (TS) 4.7.9 involve hazards considerations (51 FR pump room air exhaust cleanup system.

Snubbers and add a new Table 4.7-3 7751). Example "(i) A purely and the fuel building essential Snubber Visual Inspection Schedule. administrative change to technica) ventilation system, respectively. Each of The changes are based on the specifications: for example, a change to these requirements currently specify a application of statistical methodology to achieve consistency throughout the charcoa! adsorber removal efficiency determine visual inspection intervala technical specifications correction of an " greater than or equal to 99.95% of a which would meet the same acceptance error, or a change in nomenclature" halogenated hydrocarbon refrigerant confidence level as the current appears to represent the change relating test gas when they are tested in place."

requirements. Also, the requirement foe to deleting the first visualinspec*fon of he proposed amendment will change visual snubber inspections following snubbers after initial power operation, the removal efficiency requirement from initial power operation would be Since initial power operation is long 99.95% to 99.0%.The proposed change is removed from the TS. since passed, deleting these out-of-date being requested to make the Palo Verde Basisforpmposedno significant descriptive worda is an editorial Unit 1 Technical Specifications hazards considemtion determinationr correction. consistent with the guidance provided The change involves only visual ne remaining chanaes do not seem to by Generic Letter 83-13 and with the surveillance requirements and does not fit any of the Commission's examples, palo Verde Unit 2 Technical alter the current Limiting Condition for However, based on our preliminary Specifications which were previously Operation or the accompanying Action review of the licensee's proposed reviewed and accepted by the staff.

Statement for the snubber system TS's, changes:(1) A significant increase in the Basis forproposedno significant The statistical methods employed as the probability or consequences of an hazan/s consideration determinationt

37504 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 204 / Wednesday. October 22. 1986 / Notices The Commission has provided Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, technical superiority to more than standards for determining whether a Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318. Calveri mitigate the increase in inspection time, significant hazards consideration exists Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Unit Nos.1 and as such, would not involve any as statectin to CFR 50.92. A proposed and 2. Calvert County. Maryland significant increase in the probability or amendment to an operating license for a Date of application for amendments: consequences of an accident that was facility involves no significant hazards July 31.1986 (partial response) previously evaluated.

considerations if operation of the facility Description of amendment mquest (ii) Create the possibility of a new or in accordance with a proposed The following proposed change to the different type of accident from any amendment would not:(1) Involve a

, technical specifications (TS) is in partial accident previously evaluated.

sigmficant increase m the probability or response to BG&E's application dated This proposal would not change the consequences of an accident previously *uly v 31.1986. The remaining issues will RCP design or operation. It would evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of be addressed in separate provide an improved method of a new or different kind of accident from correspondence.The proposed TS inspection for determining the presence any accident previously evaluated; or (3) change would modify the Units 1 and 2 of any RCP flywheel degradation.

Involve a sigmficant reduction in a Therefore, the performance ef e visual TS Surveillance Requirement 4.4.10.1.1 margin of safety, to link the completion of the reactor RCP flywheel inspection in conjunction A discussion of these standards as coolant pump (RCP) flywheel with the licensee's RCP motor overhaul they relate to the amendment request program would not create the possibility inspections to the licensee's RCP motor follows: of a new or different accident.

overhaul program rather than requiring StandardNInvolve a Significant the completion of the RCP flywheel (iii) Involve a significant reduction in Increase in the Pmbability or inspection by the end of the inservice margin of safety.

Consequences of an Accident inspection (ISI) interval.This The two. piece bolted flywheel design Paviously Evolauted modification shall be only for the first is difficult to inspect through in-place ISIinterval. All following RCP flywheel ultrasonic examinations. The proposed Th d ch I d" th visual RCP flywheel inspections, thou3h efficiene re uireme t o charcoa1 inspections shall be performed in adsorbers in ESF filtration systems from conjunction with the ISI program. performed over an extended time Basisforpmposedno sigmficant' period, would provide an improved 99.95% to 99.0% which is atill greater than the 95% eNiciency assumed in hazards consideration determinatlon mdication of the operability and The Units 1 and 2 TS Surveillance degradation of the RCP flywheels. As FSAR accident analyses.The amendment does not, therefore. Requirement 4.4.10.1.1 requires RCP such th,s i proposal would not involve a flywheelinspections to be completed sigmficant reduction in a margin of significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident. during the 10-year inservice inspection safety.

(ISI) interval for each unit. The licensee Based upon the above the NRC staff Standard 2--Cmate the Possibility of a has proposed that this requirement be agrees with the licensee's evaluation New or Different Kind ofAccident From modified to link the performance of the and proposes to determine that the AnyAccidentPreviouslyEvaluated RCP flywheelinspections to the proposed change to TS 4.4.10.1.1 The proposed amendment does not licensee's voluntary RCP motor overhaul involves no significant hazard vary or affect any plant operating program rather than to the ISI interval. consideration.

condition or parameter. For these This proposed modification would only LocalPublic Document Room reasons. the NRC staff has determined affect RCP flywheelinspections location: Calvert County 1.ibrary. Prince that the proposed amendment does not applicable to the first to-year ISI Frederick. Maryland.

create the possibility of a new or interval. All following flywheel Attorneyforlicensee: Jay E. Silberg, different kind of accident from any inspections would continue to be linked Esq., Shaw. Pittman, Potts and accident previously evaluated. to their respective ISI interval schedules. Trowbridge. 2300 N Street. NW..

The first 10-year ISI intervals for both Washington, DC 20037.

Standard 3-Involve,o Significant Units 1 and 2 are scheduled for NRCProject Director: Ashok C.

Reducten m a Margm ofSafety completion in April 1987.This proposed Thadani.

The requested amendment does not change would result in the completion of Carolina Powe.- & IJght Company' change any of the design bases for the the RCP flywheelinspections being plant. For this reason, the NRC staff has Dockets Nos. 50-325 and 50-324*

deferred to June 1990. and June 1991 for Bmnswick Steam ElectrWant Unhs 1 determined that the change does not Units 1 and 2. respectively. due to being involve a significant reduction in any linked to the completion of the RCP ad Brunswick County, North margins of safety, motor overhaul program. [ ,

Based on the above considerations. 'lle licensee evaluated the proposed Date of applicationforamendments: I the Commission proposes to determine change against the standards of 10 CFR September 12.1986.

that the proposed change does not 50.92 and has determined that the Description of amendment request:

involve a significant hazards amendments would not:(i) Involve a The proposed amendment would change consideration. significant increase in the probability or the Technical Specifications (TS) for LocoIPublic Document Roem consequences of an accident previously Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Units 1 Location: Phoenix Public 1.ibrary, evaluated. and 2.The proposed revision to TS Business. Science and Technology Though this proposal would Section 3/4.6.3 would extend the l Department.12 East McDowell Road, significantly lengthen the period of time allowable isolation time for the Reactor l Phoenix. Arizona 85004. necessary to complete the RCP flywheel Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) system AttorneyforLicensees:Mr. Arthur C. inspections, the visual flywheel steam line isolation valves.

Gehr. Snell & Wilmer. 3100 Valley inspection conducted in conjunction The RCIC system steam line is Center. Phoenix. Arizona 85007. with the RCP n 9 tor changeout in providea with both an inboard NRCProject Director: George W. comparison to ti a conventional in-place containment isolation valve (E51-F007)

Knighton. ultrasonic examination is of sufficient and an outboard isolation valve (E51-

Federal Register / Vol. St. No. 204 / Wednesday. October 22, 1986 / Notices 37505 F0081). Technical Specification 3/4.6.3 ruptured RCIC line would clearly be well and Trowbridge. 2300 N Street NW.,

currently requires these isolation valves within limita established in to CFR 100. A Washington. DC 20037.

to close within 20 seconds.The isolation break in the 3-inch RCIC line with a 30- NRCProject Director: Daniel R.

time for these valves for'the Brunswick sec nd ci sure time f r the is lation valve Afuller.

w uld result. then. in a very small offsite facility has historica!!y been between 18 and 20 seconds. Therefore, the licensee dose. less than one. tenth the dose calculated Carolina Power and IJght Company, for the HpCI steam line break.ne change in Docket No. 50-261. H. B. Robinson is requesting the allowable isolation dose associated with the proposed change in time be extended to 30 seconds to Steam Electric Plant. Unit No.2 RCIC isolation time from :0 to 30 seconds is Darlington County South Carolina provide a measure of flexibility m the only a fraction of this small dose, surveillance testing. The proposed 2.ne proposed amendment does not Dateofamendmentrequest August change is identical to that granted as create the poss:bility of a new or different 28,1986.

temporary Amendment 126 to the kind of accident than previously evaluated Description of amendment request:

because the change does not affect the Drunswick 2 license on June 10.1980. The proposed amendment would revise

• sny Basisforproposedno significant "[, d ,gI", ,, C, s]l,,ten y Technical Specifications (TS) for the hazards consideration determination: function. valve operabdity will continue to H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant. Unit The Commission has provided be ensured through periodic stroke testing to No. 2.The proposed change revises the standards for determining whether a the 30-second limits. Technical Specifications to correct an significant hazards consideration exists 3. The proposed amendment does not editorial error in Section 3.3.1.2. In a in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed involve a significant reduction in a margin of previous amendment, several amendment to an operating license for a safety because the slight increase in the paragraphs were deleted from TS facility invo'.ves no significant hazards consequences of a RCIC steam line rupture Section 3.3.1.1 and subsequent consideration if operation of the facility *h co ep po' paragraphs were renumbered. However,

,h , m ujtjueyt to ,, n m accordance with the proposed stream line or to-inch HPCl line rupture. As references to the renumbered amendment would not:(1) Involve a such, the extended RCIC stream line isolation paragraphs were inadvertently not significant increase in the probability or time does not present either a radiological or changed, thus creating incorrect consequences of any accident an environmental qualification concern. references.

previously evaluated;(2) create the periodic stroke time testing of the valves will Basisforpmposedno significant possibility of a new or different kind of maintain assurance of valve operability. haran/s consideration determination:

accident from any accident previously The NRC staff has reviewed the ne Commission has provided guidance evaluated; or (3) involve a significant licensee's analysis and concludes the in the form of examples of amer dments reduction in a margin of safety. In the following. that are not considered likely to involve September 12.1986 submittal and in the 1. Operation of the facility in significant hazards considerations (51 June 4.1986 application for temporary accordance with the amendment would FR 7751). Example (i) states "a purely Amendment 126. the licensee has not increase the probability of an administrative change to the Technical provided an analysis of the proposed accident previously evaluated because Specifications: for example, a change to increase in RCIC isolation time relative the mode of operation of the plant is not achieve consistency throughout the to significant hazards considerations. As changed.The consequences of an Technical Specificatbns, correction of a result of this analysis the licensee has accident previously evaluated are not an error or a change in nomenclature."

determined the following: significantly increased because as Since the proposed change will correct 1.The proposed amendment does not discussed above only a small e.ffect is paragraph referencing,in order to involve a significant increase in the seen in an accident previously achieve consistency in the Technical probability or consequences of any accident dete(mined to have minor contequences Specifications, the change is identical to previously evaluated. An analysis has been compared to the limiting accidents of Example (i). Therefore, the Commission performed which determined that extending this type.l.e !!PCIline break and main proposes to determine that this the allowable RCIC steam hne isolation time hmendment involves no significant stream line break ~

use to es abhsh envi n ent ua ation 2. Operation of the facility in harards consideration.

at Brunswick.These profiles were accordance with the amendment would LocalPublic Document Room established based on a rupture of a 10-inch not create the possibility of a new or location: Hartsville Memorial Library, liPCI line with a 50-second isolation time. different kind of accident because the Home and Fifth Avenues. Hartsville.

The amount of coolant lost in 30 seconds mode of plant operation is not changed South Carolina 29535.

through a break in the 3-inch RCIC steam line by the amendment. Attorneyforheensee:Shaw Pittman, would be much less than that assumed for the 3. Operation of the facility in Potts, and Trowbridge 2300 N Street to-inch IIPC! line break. Therefore, although NW., Washington. DC 20037 accordance with the amendment would

'"s ntm f s c

'"$C R steapjolat ,, , , c

, not involve a reduction in a margin of NRCProject Director:Lester S.

the consequences of that accident. a rupture safety because the margins of safety Rubenstem.

of the laLinch HPCI steam line remains the involved are determined from the more Carolina Power and Light Company, limiting esent for environmental quahfication severe cases of HPCIline break and purposes. The radiological affects of the main steam line break. Docket No. 50-261. H. B. Robinson extended RCIC isolation time have also been Based on this review, the staff Steam Electric Plant. Unit No. 2 DamngtonCanty SethCarolina evaluated. Design basis accident dose therefore proposes to determine that the estimates at the site boundary are based on a proposed change does not involve a Date of amendment request main steam line break.These estimates are s gnificant hazards consideration. September 3.1986.

han the Yo all$we by 0 1$ e da,. LocalPublic Document Room Description of amendment request:

estimate resulting from a rupture in the 10 locahon: Southport. Brunswick County %e proposed amendment would revise inch IIPCI steam line is approsimately 1/3 of Library.109 W. Moore Street. Southport. Technical Specifications (TS) for the l that of a main stream line break. Given the North Carolina 28461. H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant. Unit reduced loss of coolant through the 3-inch Attorneyforlicensee: Thomas A No. 2.The proposed revision involves a RCIC line. doses at the site boundary due to a Baxter. Esquire.Shaw Pittman Potts change to Technical Specification 6.2.3 i

l i

i 37506 Federal Register / Vol. 51 No. 2fM / Wednesday. October 22, 1986 / Notices to reflect a dual role of Senior Reactor NRCPm/cciDimctor: Lester S. amendrnent is in response to that Operator (SRO) and Shift Technical Rubenstein. Generic letter.

Advisor (STA)if anindividualholds a Carolina Power and Ught Company, It is the staff's intention to apply this SRO, license and also meets the amendment to Byron Station. Unit 2, requirements of the STA.The change is Docket No.50-261. lt B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant. Unit No. 2, when it receives its operating license if based on the staff's Policy Statement on the amendment is found acceptable for Dmii: gton County, South Carolina Engineering Expertise on Shift (Generic Byron Station. Unit 1.

Letter 86-61). Date of amendment mquest- Basis forpmposedno significant Basisforpmposedno significant September,4.1980. hozords considemtion determination:

hazonis considention determination: Descriptwn of amendment request: The staff has evalusted this proposed The Commission has provided The proposed amendment would revise amendment and determined that it standards for determin!ng whether a Technical Specifications (TS) for the nvolves no significant hazardt significant hazards consideration exists 11.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit considerations. According to 10 CFR (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed No. 2. The proposed revision adds to TS 50.92(c). a proposed amendment to an amendment to an operating license for a Section 6.13.1 a distance at which dose operating license involves no significant facility involves no significant hazards rates must be measured for determining hazards considerations if operation of consideration if operation of the facihty whether an area is a High Radiation . the facility in accordance with the in accordance with the proposed Area (lira) or a locked High Radiation proposed amendment would not; ea d s the amendment would not:(1) involve a 1. Involve a significant incrmse in the sigmficant increase m the probability or d 1S a definition and thus, will add clarity and Probability or, consequences of an consequences of an accident previously accident previously evaluated; cr evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a avoid misunderstanding of the existm.g

2. Create the ponibility of a new or riew or different kind of acudent from TS Basisforpmposedno significant different kind of accident from any any accident previously evaluated; or (3) accident previously evaluated; or involve a significant reduction in a .hozords consideration determination: 3. Involve a significant reduction in a margm of sah The Commission has provided guidance in the form of examples of amendments margin of safety.

The hcensee has determm.ed and the that are not considered to involve , The proposed revision to the b, cense NRC staff agrees that the proposed Condition is m accordance with the significant hazards considerations (51 amendment will not: guidance provided in Genenc Letter 86-FR 7751). Example (ii) states. *'A change (1) Involve a significant increase in that constitutes an additionallunitation, 10 for Commonwealth Edison Company the probability or consequences of an requesting removal of the Byron Station restriction. or control not presently accident previously evaluated because Fire Protection Techm, cal Specifications.

included in the techn!::al specifications:

this request combines existing The pmposed Ucense Condition is for example a more stringent requirements and is not intended to surveillance requirement." The proposed virtually the same as the existmg eliminate or reduce licensee Ucense Condition with mimmal change adds an 18 inch distance at responsibilities. It is based on an NRC changes.The revision is proposed to be policy statement which encourages use which the dose rates must be measured.

This is clearly an additional requirement consistent with the NRC goal of of the dual-role position.NRC standardizmg the Fire Protection requirements are not being ehminated and fits Example (ii) above.ne Commission therefore proposes to Program Ucense Conditions to ensure and, therefore, there is no increase in uniform enforcement of fire protection the probability or consequences of an determine that this action involves no ,

significant hazards consideration. requirements.The change requested is accident previously evaluated. to the license condition which provides (2) Create the possibility of a new or focalPublic Document Room location:Hartsville Memorial Ubrary, the guidelines for maintaining and different kind of accident from any Home and Fifth Avenues,llartsville. making changes to the Station's Fire accident previously evaluated because Protection Program and is not a change South Carolina 29535.

the request combines existing NRC A ttomey for licensee: Sha w, Pittman, affecting the design or function of a requirement without eliminating any Potts, and Trowbridge,2300 N Street particular feature of the fire protection already in existence.Therefore no new NW., Washington. DC 20037. system.Since the Ucense Condition accidents could result from making this wording is virtually the same, the change. NRCPm/ectDirector:Lester S.

Rubenstein. change does not involve a significant (3) Involve a significant reduction in a increase in the probability or margin of safety because operation of Commonwealth Edison Company, consequences of an accident previously the facility with this change in place Docket No. STN 50-454, Byron Station, evaluated. It does not create the would not result in a significant Unit 1 Ogle County, Illinois possibility of a new or different kind of reduction in any margin of safety and no Date of applicationforamendmene accident from those previously NRC requiraments are being eliminated. August 29.1986. evaluated. It also doesn't involve a Accordingly, the Commission Description of amendment equeste significant reduction in the margin of proposes to determine that the proposed %e amendment would revise condition safety since the license condition still changes to the Technical Specifications 2.C(B) of the license issued February 14 requires that to CFR 50.59 evaluation for involve no significant hazards 1985, and would remove the Fire identification c. ereviewed safety consideration. Protection Technical Specifications from questions be performed for each Loco /Public Document Room Appendix A of thatlicense. Generic proposed change. With the proposed location: Hartsville Memorial Ubrary. Letter 86-10 from the NRC, dated April license condition, as with the existing Home and Fifth Avenues, Hartsville. 24,1968. provided guidance to licensees licensing condition, each change to the South Carolina 29535. to request a revised fire protection fire protection program will be A ttorney forlicensee: Shaw. Pittma n, license condition and to request removal eva'.uated for its impact on the fire Potts, and Trowbridge. 2300 N Street of the Fire Protection Technical haurds analysis and the margin of NW., Washington, DC 20037. Specifications. The licensee's proposed safety.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices 37507 ne second revision requests the NRCProject Director: Vincent C. Accordingly, the Commission removal of the Fire Protection Technical Noonan. proposes that the changes would fall Specifications and the adslition of into the category of a no significant Commonwealth Edison Company, certam admmistrative control Docket Nos. 50-373 and 56 374, La Salle hazards consideration determination ,

requirements. Removing the Fire since the changes are admimstrative.

Protection Technical Specifications does County Sta. tion, Units 1 and 2. La Salle l.ocalPublic Document Room not increare the probability or Y'

location: Public Library of Illinois Valley consequences of an accident previously Dates of amendment mquest: Community College. Rural Route No.1, evaluated; the accident evaluated being December 20.1985 as amended by Ogelsby, Illinois 61348.

the postulated fire in the fire hazard and letters dated April 29, August 13. and A ttorney for licensee: Ish a m. Lincoln snalysis documented in the Fire Septemb,er 3,1986, and Burke. Suite 840.1120 Connecticut Protection Report. Removing these Description of amendment request Avenue, NW., Washington. DC 20036.

Technical Specifications does not alter The proposed amendments to Operating A'RCProject Director: Elinor G.

the results of the fire hazards analysis. License NPF-11 and Operating License Adensam.

The Technical Specifications provide NPF-18 would revise the La Salle Units requirements gar gire protection g 1 and 2 Technical Specifications to Commonwealth Edison Company, reflect Commonwealth Edison's Docket Nos.56-295 and 56-304, Zion hu no t e a The p posed (licensee) management organizational Nuclear Power Station.

change does not remove or degrade changes both at the corporate level and 2, Benton County Illino, is Unit Nos.1 and Byron Station's administrative program. at the La Salle County Station as a Date of applicationforamendments:

Thus, a level of fire protection result of a reorganization. The licensee September 19,1986.

consistent with that currently existing !ndicates that all functions performed by Description of amendments requestr will rema n unchanged. mdividuals meet the mammum These amendments will allow one A new or different kind of accident ac epta ,

s d i" 8 .

battery charger assigned to a 125 V.D.C.

,2 9{ 8 1 for ea h from that previously evaluated is not bus of a unit in either cold shutdown or created. The proposed change only '9

{, ,j,'7f,Y,'yf,8M w of the original refueling to be used to fulfill the battery involves a transfer of the controlling charger operability requirement of a mechanisms for the fire protection application, it was determined that the delegation of authority permitted a D.C. bus of an operating unit.This will, requirements from the Techm, cal be accomplished by utilizing the crosstie Specification to Dyron Station s Superintendent to approve overtime for other departments and permitted breakers.

adm,m istrative program.ne Fire .

, delegation of authority to authoriza Tne need for this proposed change has Protection Program License Condition overtime to a lower level supervisor. On developed from the planned, 2.C(6) and the proposed changes t . September 3.1986 the licensee replacement of the Zion Station ,

Technical Specification Administrative augmented its application by explicitly batteries.These batteries are bemg Control Section 0.0 requires that for any replaced as part of a program to upgrade denoting the authority to each proposed changes to the Fire Protection and expand the capacity of Zion Program requirements, a 10 CFR 50.59 respective Superintendent and deleting delegation to lower level supervisors. In Station's safety-related batteries.The evaluation be performed. In addition, an two batteries dedicated to Unit 1 (111 addition, the letters dated April 29 and onsite review involving personnel from and 112) and the common battery (011)

August 13.1986, provided clarifying different cognizant functional areas will are scheduled to be replaced during the information in response to staff also be required to review any proposed questions. current Unit i refuehng outage.

changes to the Fire Protection Program. Basisforpmposedno significant nis change does not alter the intent Therefore, mdividual changes will hazards consideration determination: of the current Technical Specifications.

continue to be evaluated for their impact The original request of December 20 Section 3.151e already allows the use on the fire hazards analysis. 1985. was noticed in the Federal Register of a D.C. bus from a unit in either cold The proposed change does not involve (51 FR 3'11) on January 29,1986. In shutdown or refueling to fulfill the a reduction in the margin of safety since augmenting its application to explicitly operability requirements of the opposite it is administrative in nature and does denote that each Superintendent only unit. Inadvertently, this logic was not not involve a particular change to the approves overtime for their own transferred to Section 3.15.2.f. nese fire hazards analysis previously department. the licensee revised its proposed amendments will achieve documented. Each individual change original request by letter dated consistency between the intent of will continue to be evaluated separately September 3,1986.This revision was Section 3.152e and Section 3.15.2.f and for its impact on the margin of safety. substantial enough to require renoticing are a clarification of the existing The proposed revision will ensure that the requested amendments. This change Technical Specifications.

adequate review of proposed changes to specifies the authority for authorizing Basisforproposedno significant the Fire Protection program continues to overtime in accordance with the staff's hazards consideration determination be performed. requirements. The Commission has provided Based on the preceding assessment, The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a the staff believes this proposed guidance concerning the application of significant hazards consideration exists amendment involves no significant the standards for determining whether a [51 FR 7751 (hfarch 6.1986)). A proposed hazards considerations. significant hazards consideration exists amendment to an operating license for a LocalPublic Document Room by providing certain examples (51 FR facility involves no significant hazards location: Rockford Public Library,215 N. 7744). Example (i) stated. "A purely consideration if operation of the facility Wyman Street, Rockford, Illinois 61103. administrative change to tha Technical in accordance with the proposed A ttorney for licensee: hiichael hiiller, Specifications." These proposed amendment would not:(1) Involve a Isham Lincoln & Beale.One First amendments fall under this example significant increase in the probability or National Plaza. 42nd Floor. Chicago, since these changes are administrative conseguences of an accident previously Illinois 60603. in nature. evaluated;(2) create the possibility of a

l .-

l 37508 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices  !

new or different kind of accident from Attorney to lixnsee: P. Steptoe, Esq., aftcr issuance of the NRC's approval of any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Isham, Lincoln and Beale. Counselors at Revision 4 to the DWROG EPGs.

involve a significant reduction in a Law, Three First National Plaza,51st Basisforpmposedno significant margin of safety. Floor. Chicago, Dlinois 60002. hazards considention detennination:

The IJcensee provided the following 1GCPmject Director: Steven A. The Commission has provided discussion regardmg the above three Varga. standards for determining whether a

'#I

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50- significant hazards consideration exists 341, Fermi-2, Monroe County, Miclugan (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed Criterion amendment to an operating license for a ne operating unit will have three batteries Dates of amendment myuest: June 19 facility involves no significant hazards and three operable 125 V.D.C buses and July 31,1988. consideration if operation of the facility Description of amendment request- in accordance with the proposed e no c a in a si' bdIty r qua ty of the D C control power available to the This proposed amendment,if approved, amendment would not:(1) involve a operating Zion reactor. would revise the Fermi.2 Operating  ;,ignificant increase in the probability or Since there has been no degradation in the License No. NPF-43 by modifying an consequences of an accident previously integrity of Zion's electrical system, then all item in Attachment 2 to the licensa- evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of safety-related systemn will operate as License Condition 2.C(17) requires the previously evaluated. Thus, there will be no a new or different kind of accident from licensee to complete the required an accident previously evaluated; or (3) change m the con uences of any accident emergency response capabilities as involve a significant reduction in a ased u n the above discussion this described in Attachment 2 to the Fermi- margin of safety.

proposed amendment does not involve a 21! cense. item 1(a)of Attachment 2 The licensee has determined, and the significant increase in the probability oe Presently requires the licensee to staff agrees, that the requested consequences of any accident previously submit, prior to November 30,1988, a amendments per 10 CFR 50.92 do not:(1) evaluated. summary report of its detailed control involve a significant increase in the criterion room design review (DCRDR).

probability or consequences of an As discussed above. the use of the crosatie An additionalitem in Attachment 2 accident previously evaluated because breakers to allow the battery charger Item 3(a),is addressed in the bcenset:s the design of the control room has been assigned to a shutdown unit to be utilized to two submittals cited abcVe. Item 3(s) reviewed several times by the licensee fulfill the operability requ rements of the required the licensee to provide, prior to to dete .ine whether there were any opposite, operating unit has no effect on any July 31,1986, a procedures generation of Zion's system nor on the operation package (PGP) for NRC staff review and human factors defs'ciencies.%e staff conditions of the Zion rea: tors. In addition, approval. He licensee submitted reviewed this effort and issued the rehabihty and integnty of the Zion fav rable evaluations in supplements to electrical system will be unaltered. nus, the information on this matter!n its letter dated July 31,1986. The staff will the SER the most recent favorable possibility of a new or dif erent kind of evaluation is contained in Supplement 5 internally generated accident cannot be address this item at a later date.

to the SER issued in March 1985.

created. In its letter dated June 19,1988 the Because the original license condition ne use of the 125 V.D.C. bus crossties has licensee stated that the absence of no effect on the generation of any external approved generic emergency procedures was predicated on these favorable event.nat is, there is no :onnection guidelines (EPGs) prevented it from initial evaluations and contemplated a between the alignment of the D.C system and conducting the DCRDR on the schedule limited time Interval before completion the susceptibihty of Zion Station to such requ red by item 1(a) of Attachment 2 to of the DCRDR, the proposed limited extemal events as earthqtakes, tornadoes, extension of the date for completion of and floods. de Fermi-2 licenu. Specifically, de stagg requirement is gat ge gicensea the DCRDR does not in itself change the Based upon the above discussion. this ggg proposed change does not create the perform the DCRDR in accordance with possibihty of a new or dif"e+ent kind of approved EPGs.These EPGs are introduce a significant change in accident from any accident previously currently being developed by a BWR circumstances relating to the safe evaluated. Owners Group (BWROG) with the most operation of the plant; or (2) create the recent version identified as Revision 4. possibility of a new or different kind of Criterion 3 As discussed above, there will be three The licensee is 6 member of this Owners accident previously evaluated because G B the bmittal dat i the limited extension of time to complete p ratUn[un t n buse e a$la$lefor R s n 4 o the D%'ROG EPGs ha the DCRDR does not change,the type of the shutdown unit.nus, the operating unit been delayed by about ten months from potenCal accidents which might occur remains capable of withstanding a postulated the original estimate of December 1985, due to human errors during the proposed single failure at all times Therefore, this the date established in Item 1(a) (i.e., extended intenm penod; or (3) involve a proposed change does not reduce the margin November 30,1986) for submittal of the significant reduction in a margin of

• I **IY- summary report on the DCRDR,is no safety because the proposed extension The staff has reviewed the licensee's longer a reasonable requirement.To of time does not reduce the type or no significant hazards consideration comply with Item 1(a)in light of this number ofinstruments and controls determination and agrees with the delay, beyond its control, the licensee available for use by the operators in the licensee's analysis. Accordingly, the requested a license amendment in its control room.

Commission proposes to determine that letter dated June 19,1906, which would Based on our review of the proposed the proposed changes to the Technical delay submitting the summary report of modifications, the staff finds that there Specification involve no significant the DCRDR until July 31.1987. This exists reasonable assurance that this hazards consideration. request for a license amendment was prr~td change will have little or no LocalPublic Document Room subsequently modified in the licensee's im on the public health and safety.

location: Wa ukegan Public 1.ibrary, letter of July 31.1980, to make the Ac jngly, the commission proposes 128N County Street. Waukegan. lliinois submittal date a floating milestone to determine that the requested change 80085. based on an interval of eight months to the Fermi-2 Operating License j

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday. October 22, 1988 / Notices 37500 involves no significant hazards Trowbridge. 2300 N Street NW., of SBLOCA due to stuck open PORV consideration. Washington DC 20037. must be less than .001 per reactor year LocalPuMic Document Room NRCProject Dirxtor- Lester S. and that less than 5% of high pressure location:hfonroe County Library Rubenstein. trips are allowed to open the PORV.

System. 3700 South Custer Road- continue to be met foHowing Sese Florida Power Corporation, et al.,

hionroe. hiichigan 48101. Docket No. 50-302. Crystal River Unit changes. ne licensee has revi,ewed the Attorneyfor the Licensee: John Flynn- No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus Topical Report and the Commission's Esq., The Detroit Edison Company,2000 County, Florida Safety Evaluation and has verified that Second Avenue. Detroit. hiichigan 48909. they are applicable to Crystal River Unit NRCProject Director- Elinor Date of amendment request:}une 18, 3 (CR-3).

Adensam. 1986, as amended July 23,1986. Change 2-Add Anticipatory Rea:: tor Descnption of amendment request: Trips.

Duquesne IJght Company, Docket No. The proposed amendment would revisa The proposed change requests that the 50-334 Beaver Valley Power Station. the Technical SpeciGcations (TSs) to: (1) specifications for the Reactor Protection Unit No.1, Shippingport, Pennsylvania Raise the Reactor High Pressure Trip System instrumentation be changed to Date of amendment request: July 25. setpoint from 2300 psig to 2355 psig, and add two new reactor trips.These new 1986. (2) add Anticipatory Reactor Tnps trips are:

Description of amendment request: ( ARTS) for trips of both main feedwater (a) Anticipatory Reactor Trip-both The propo!,ed amendment would change pumps and the main turbine. main feedwater pumps, and ha e Reactor High Tables 3.3-3 and 4.3-2 of the Technical p[,, (b) Anticipatory Reactor Trip-main Specifications to comply with Revision 5 Subsequent to the Thil-2 accident, the turbine.

of the Westinghouse Standard Techmcal The ART on trip of both main Commission's staff required certain Specifications (WSTS). Specifically, the feedwater pumps will be armed changes to Reactor Protection Systems operational modes under which three whenever reactor power is equal to or intended to reduce challenges to and steam isolation signals (manual, greater than 20% of full power, and the opening of the power operated relief automatic actuation logic and high main turbine trip willbe armed steam pressure rate) are required to be valve (PORV). I'or Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) reactors, those changes included whenever reactor power is equal to or operational and surveyed would be greater than 45% oUuH power.Ws lowering the Reactor High Pressure Trip specified as hiodes 1,2 and 3. Currently' setpoint from 2355 psig to 2300 psig, and request is made in response to NUREC-these signals are required to be 0737. Item II.K 2.10, and Generic Letter implementing a safety grade automatic applicable to Modes 1,2. 3 and 4 (hot ART for, among other things, a turbine 82-10 dated September 20,1982.

shutdown). trip. He Commission's guidelines were Subsequent to the TMI-2 accident, the The capability to isolate the steamline that PORV opening should occur less Commission's staff required changes to is not needed during Mode 4. This is than 5% of the time for allanticipated Reactor Protection Systems Intended to because the limits specified for Mode 4 reduce cha!!enges to and opening of the transients and that the contribution to temperature, pressure and shutdown the probability of a small breakloss of PORV.Two of those changes required at margin already put the plant in a safe coolant accident (SBLOCA) from a stuck CR-3 were the establishment of safety condition without need for steamline open PORV is insignificant. While these grade automatic ARTS for trip of both isolatior- modifications have met the objectives of main feedwater pumps and for main Basisforproposedno significont reducing challenges to and opening of turbine trip.These ARTS are intended to hazards consideration determination: the PORV, they have increased the anticipate plant translents which may The proposed change would not involve freqdency of reactor tripe and the ultimately result in reactor high pressure any hardware change or change in attendant challenges to plant safety trips and thereby eliminate some PORV operational procedure. Steamline systems. challenges.

isolation is not needed during Mode 4 as B&W has submitted Topical Report De proposed TSs are in accordance discussed above. nus, the apparent BAW-1890," justification for Raising with the sample TSs given in Generic relaxation in operational and Setpoint for Reactor Trip on High Letter 82-16. except for the arming surveillance requirements in reality does Pressure."%e Commission 's staff has threshold of the turbine ARTS.The not result in any real change that affects reviewed this report and in its Safety arming threshold for the turbine ARTS is plant operation. The requested Evaluation found it acceptable for based on B&W Topical Report BAW-amendment does not increase the referencing in license applications. His 1893," Basis for Raising Arming probability or consequences of an Topical Report provides justification Threshold for Anticipatory Reactor Trip accident previously evaluated, will not that a number of high pressure on Turbine Trip " The Commission's create the possibility of a new type of transients would not have resulted in a staff has reviewed this Topical Report accident or malfunction of a different reactor trip ifmore margin had been and in its Safety Evaluation found it type from any previously analyzed. and available to the High Pressure Trip acceptable for use inlicense will not decrease any margin of safety. setpoint. The analyses presented applications.The licensee has reviewed Therefore, the staff proposes to demonstrate that when the Reactor High the Topical Report and the Safety characterize the proposed amendment Pressure Trip setpoint is raised to 2355 Evaluation and determined their results as involving no sigmficant hazards psig (the originallimn=<f value) and the to be applicable to CR-3.

consideration. arming threshold for ARTon turbine trip As demonstrated in the Topical LocalPublic Document Room is raised to 45% power, a reduction in Report. establishing the arming location: B. F. Jones Memorial Library, total reactor trip frequency cf about 10% threshold for the ART on turbine trip at 663 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa, is expected. Reductions in reactor trip 45% full power with Reactor High Pennsylvania 15001. frequency will contribute to overall Pressure Trip set at 2355 psig will Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald plant safety as well as pland availability. continue to meet NUREG-0737 Charnoff. Esquire, Jay E. Silberg, Furthermore, Commission guidelines guidelines regarding PORV challenges Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and regarding the PORV, that the probability and PORV opening.There may be

37510 Federal Register / Vol. St. No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices expected to be an overall reduction in Change 2 LocalPublic Document Room reactor trips and the attendant location: Crystal River Public Library, cha!!enges to safety syst, ems with these 668 m Rst Avem, Wal her, reactor protection setpomts.

de in on which e Florida 32629.

Commission agrees.

Basisforproposedno significant pggg,,,y7,,j;,,,,,g; g, y, y,;,,7, hazards consideration determination: The Commission has provided Senior Vice President and General guidance concerning the application of Counsel, Florida Power Corporation, ChangeJ standards for determmmg whether a P.O. Box 1441: St. Petersburg Florida These proposed changes have been sigmficant hazards consideration exists 33733.

reviewed against each of the criteria in by providing certam examples (51 FR NRCProject Director: John F. Stolz.

10 CFR 50.92. namely, that the proposed 7751) of amendmems that are changes would not: considered not likely to involve CPU N'.wlaar Corporation, et al., Docket (1) Inydive a significant increase in significant hazards consideration. No. 50-289 Three Mile Island Nudaar the probabihty or consequences of an Example (ii) relates to a change that Station, Unit No.1, Dauphin County, accident previously evaluated; or constitutes an additionallimitation, Pennsylvania (2) Create the possibility of a new or restriction or control not presently Date of amendment request:May 12.

different kind of accident from any included in the TSs. In this c,ase, the 1986, as supplemented September 11.

accident previously evaluated; or change described above is similar to 1986.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in a example (ii). Description of amendment request margin of safety. Adding ARTS on trip of both main With regard to en,terion (1) above, NRC Generic Letter (G.L) 83-43 dated feedwater pumps, or on trip of the main December 19,1983, requested licensees since 2355 psig is the design Reactor turbine is a reactor control function not to amend their Technical Specifications liigh Pressure Trip s,etpoint, the original presently included in the TSs.The (TSs) to reflect changes in reporting Final Safety Analysis Report analyses proposed TSs are in accordance with requirements of to CFR 50. Il 50.72 and remain applicable for this setpomt. the guidance of Generic Letter 82-16 50.73. A modelTS was enclosed Analyses applicable to CR-3 have been except for the arming threshold of the showing revisions to be made in the performed which demonstrate that the main turbine ART.The main turbine' guidelines on which the previous " Administrative Control" and ART arming thrushold was chosen " Definitions" sections of the TSs.The reduc, tion of Reactor High Pressure Tn.P based on B&W cnalyses that have been generic letter further requested that setpomt were based will continue to be rev ewed and accepted by the other conforming changes to TSs be met at the higher (ongmally licensed) Commission's staff in its Safety setpomt.Therefore, increasing the made in order to reflect the revised Evaluation dated April 25,1986, The t Reactor liigh Pressure Trip setpoint I censee has reviewed the B&W analysis from 2300 psig to 2355 psig does not and Commission's Safety Evaluation drte N se of t s 'fS Chan8e significantly increase the probability or Request (TSCR)is to revise the reporting

' d has verified they are applicable to requirements of the TSs for TMI-1 to be consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

da- consistent with the rule changes in to Based on the above, the amendment CFR 50.72 and 50.73. In addition, the With regard to criterion (2) above. this change returns the Reactor High *E. DD .

TSCR incorporates other administrative Pressure Trip setpoint to the value for 1. Involve a s.ignificant increase in the changes affecting the same TS pages as which the plant was originally licensed. probability or consequence of an modified by the above-mentioned The function of the setpoint is not accident previously evaluated. Adding generic letter, altered as a result of the change (i.e., the these specifications places an additional Administrative changes made in setpoint still serves the purposes of restriction on the operation of CR-3 that addition to those specifically made in assuring the integrity of the Reactor will shut the reactor down in response to G.L 85-43 involve the Coolant System as a barrier against the anticipation of a reactor high pressure following:

release of fission products, assuring that condition that could exist due to a main a. Deletion of the requirements for the Reactor Coolant System pressure turbine trip or both main feedwater submittal of certain reports or safety limit is not exceeded, and pump trip. The ARTS preclude either of information no longer required by NRC.

reducing challenges to the PORV). these events from producing a challenge b. Clarification of TS section 6.10.2 by Therefore, increasing the Reactor High to the Reactor Coolant System PORV. inserting the words ". . . unless Pressure Trip setpoint from 2300 psig to 2. Create the possibility of a new or otherwise specified in 6.10.1 above."

2355 psig does not create the possibility different kind of accident from any This is to distinguish between the of a new or different kind of accident. accident previously evaluated. ARTS records which are to be retained for the With regard to criterion (3) above. the provide an additional safety function. duration of the operatinglicense and Commission's Safety Evaluation of B&W two additional reactor trips, and offer no those which are required to be retained Topical Report BAW-1890 concludes opportunity for creating a new kind of for at least five years.

that this setpoint chan ;e meets the accident. c. Deletion of Specification 6.10.2.n Commission's guidelines regarding 3. Involve a significant reduction in concerning the retention of equipment PORV openings and PORV-caused the margin of safety. ARTS provide an qualification records, as these SBLOCAs. Returning the Reactor High additional safety function which requirements are addressed by Pressure Trip setpoint to 2355 psig will increases the margin of safety relative to regulation in to CFR 50.49.

reduce the frequency of automatic trips, transients which have a probability of d. Designation of the appropriate and thus decrease the number of resulting in an overpressure condition in individual responsible for maintaining challenges to plant safety systems. the Reactor Coolant System. administrativa control of keys to locked Therefore, increasing the Reactor High Based on the above, the Commission barricades specified in 6.12.1.b.

Pressure Trip setpoint from 2300 psig to proposes to determine that the proposed e. Deletion of tid reference to 2355 psig does not involve a significant amendment does not involve a Regulatory Guide (R.G.) 10.1 from l reduction in a margin of safety. significant hazards consideration. Specification 6.9.1.C concerning the l l

l 1

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wednesday. October 22, 1986 / Notices 37511 I

distribution of the Monthly Operating consistency, correct errors, change The Commission's staff has reviewed Report. nomenclature. and improve clarity. l the licensee's proposed amendment and i

f. Clarification of Specification 6A3 to Based on the above, the Comminion associated analysis of no significant specifiy more clearly the approval makes a proposed determination that hazards considerations. Based upon this process for temporary changes to the this amendment request does not review, the staff concurs with the procedures of 6.8.1. This change is to involve significant hazards licensee's analysis on the three remove the ambiguity of the current consideraticas. standards and proposes to determine wording. LocalPublic Documene Room that the amendment does not involve a

g. Deletion of the redundant listing of location: Covernment Publications significant hazards consideration.

special reports in Specification 0.9.3. Section. State 1.ibrary of Pennsylvania. Loca/PublicDocument Room

h. Correction of format. grammar. Education Building. Commonwealth and location Government Publications misspellings, and other errors from Walnut Streets. Harrisburg. Section. State Library of Pennsylvania, previous amendclents and addition of Pennsylvania 17128. Education Building. Commonwealth and language to improve clarity of the TSs. A tiarney for //censee: Ernest I. Blake. Walnut Streets. Harrisburg.

i. Clarification of TS reporting Jr.. Pittman. Potts and Trowbridge 2300 Pennsylvania 17128.

requirements and/or bases to be N Street. NW., Washington, DC 20037. Attorneyforlicensee: Ernest L Blake, consistent with Standard TSs. Jr., Shaw. Pittman. Potts and This amendment request was NRCProject Director: John F. Stolz.

originally published in the Federal GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket Trowbridge. 2300 N Street. NW.,

Register on July 2.1986(51 FR 24256). Washington. DC 20037 No. 50-289. Three Mile Island Nuclear Since then, the licensee has submitted a Station. Unit No.1. Dauphin County, KitCProject Directon John F. Stolz.

supplement in response to NRC Pennsylvania CPU Nuclear Corporation. et al., Docket comments concerning appropriate TS No. 50-289. Three Mile Island Nuclear language and to ensure changes are Date of amendmentregoest July 29 1986 (TSCR No.151), as supplemented Station. Unit No.1 Dauphin County, consistent with Standard TSs. All Pennsylvania supplemental TS changes are within the ^* '

g 'gl,',*,y ,,,,g,,,, ,gq,,,g. Date of amendment request: August asfsf rpro Primarily, the proposed amendment 25.1986, as supplemented October 1 s nos ficant w uld change and delete certaln unit 1986.

hazards consideration determination:

The Commission's staff has reviewed staff organizatonal titles or- Descript/on cf amendmentmuese the licensee's no significant hazards resp nsibilities identified in Section e of The Fuel Handhng Building (FHB) Air consideration determination and agrees the Techmcal Specifications (TSs) for Treatment System contains. controls, with the licensee's analysis. %e Three Mile Island Nuclear Statmrr. Unit mitigates, monitors, and records Commission has provided guidelines N .1. M re specifically. Technical radiation releases which might result pertaining to the application of the three Specification Change Request (TSCR) from a nil-1 postulated spent fuel no significant hazards consideration No.151 reorganizes the Plant Operations accident in the Fl!B. As a result of a standards by listing specific examples in department, retitles the Radiological I.icensing Board decision in the TMI-1 51 FR 7751. Part of the proposed Controls Forman deletes the position of restart proceeding.GpU Nuclear amendment is being made to comply Trarning Coordinator, and deletes " Type Corporation (GpUNIla installing an with reporting requirements in 10 CFR of I.icense** reference from the engineered safety feature (ESF) filtration 50.72 and 50.73.This portion of the organization chart. The type of license system for the Unit I side of the FIIB.

proposed amendment is in the same required for certain operators is rrot ne new system, as described in category as example (vii) of being changed. Rather the reference to GPUN's submittals to the NRC dated amendments that are considered not the required license is being deleted March 27.1986 and October 1.1986 is hkely to involve significant hazards from the o;ganization chart. expected to be operational around consideration,i.e a change to make a Basisforpropcsedno significant November 1.1986, The detailed system license conform to changes in the hazards consideration determinationi descriptions were not submitted as part regulations, where the license change Pursuant to the provisions of to CFR of the amendment request (Le.not part results in very minor changes to facility 50.91, the !!censee has provided the of the separate submittals dated August operations clearly in keeping with the following determination of no significant 25,1966, as supplemented October 1.

regulations. hazards considerations using the 1986). However. ; hey do form part of the The remaining portions of the standard criteria prescribed by 10 CRt basis of the NRC review on this amendment serve to delete reports no 50.92(c): amendment.

longer required by the NRC delete TS 1.The proposed changes do not affect This proposed amendment:(1) requirernents superseded by regulations, plant equipment or systems and Provides additional requirements for clarify ambiguity in wording. designate therefore will not involve a significant operation and testing of the new FHB individuals responsible for maintaining increase in the probability or ESF AirTreatment System which are administrative control of keys tolocked consequences of an accident presiously adequate to protect against accidents brrricades delete out. dated report evaluated or involving the handhng of irradiated fuel l

distribution requirements, delete 2. The proposed changes do not affect in the FHB;(2) reduces some of the redundant listing of special reports, plant equipment or systems and requirements for the Auxiliary and FHB

' provide consistency with Standard TSe, therefore will not create the possibility Air Treatment System which are no and correct fonnat grammar, and of a new or different kind of accident longer required to protect against this misspe;Iings.These changes are from any accident previously evaluated type of accident while retaining those administrative in nature and are similar or requirements of the Auxiliary a,nd FHB to example (i) of amendments that are 3.The proposed changes do not alter Air Treatment System necessary to not considered likely to involve a functional duties and therefore will not ensure that doses to radiation workers significant hazards consideration,i.e a involve a significant reduction in a on site and releases during normal purely administrative change to achieve margin of safety. power operation are maintained As Low

• I l

l l

37512 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices -

As Reasonably Achievable (Al. ARA): Attorneyforlicensee: G. F. existing commitments presently being cnd (3) includes administrative or 'Irowbridge. Shaw, Pittman. Potts and adhered to. The River Bend Station Unit 1 sditorial changes for clarity. Trowbridge,2300 N Street, NW., Facihty Opetating License (NpF-47) currently L'asisforproposedno significant Washington, DC 20037. **"' 'j;0$" *l,f,5fa,*,\f NBCProject Director: John F. Stolz.

wp hazards consi,demtion determinotion: incorporated within the license. By The Commission has provided implementing the recommendations of standards for determimng whether a Gulf States Utilities Company. Docket No. 50-458. River Bend Station, Unit 1 Revision 2 of Appendix 11 of the TDI DRQR significant hazards consideration exists Report. GSU will be implementing a progNm ss stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A propos,ed West Feliciana Parish'laulslana ,

that has undergone extensive mdustry and amendment to an operating license for a Date of amendment request: August 4, regulatory review. (Re: Safety Esaluation facility involves no significant hazards 1986 as amended August 15.1986 and Report Re ne Operabdity/Reliabihty of the consideration ifit meets three standards supplemented on September 26.1986. Emergency Diesel Generators Manufactured as described in 10 CFR 50.92.He Description of amendment request ransammca aval c nd pB ,,

Commission's staff has reviewed the Amend Attachment III and Technical licensee s proposed determination and Specification 3/4-8.1.1 of the River Bend dated luly 16.1988.) The proposed change would change the Technical Specifications to is in agreement with the licensee's Station Operating 1.icense, NPF-47, to be consistent with the commitments in the conclusion. Each standard is discussed revise the provisions on maintenance for Facihty Operating Ucense.

In turn. the TDI emergency diesel generators. nus no new or different kind of accident Standard 1-%e proposed This revision willimplement the scenario is introduced.

cmendment would not involve a recommendation of Revision 2 of ne proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or Appendix II of TDI Diesel Generator significant reduction in the margin of safety consequences of an accident previously Owners Group Design Review and because the change makes the Technical evaluated.The design basis accident for Quality Revalidation (DRQR) Report Specifications consistent with the approvtd the FHB ESF Air Treatment System is a (submitted hfay 1,1986). NRC staff 'd' fuel drop accident. Operation of this Q'*,"cy", ' , " ' , gis o! ee I evaluation of the DRQR is documented diesel generators for nuclear standby service system and the Auxiliary and FHB A,r i in Supplement 3 of the River Bend SER. is within the range normally assumed for Treatment System in accordance with Basisforpmposedno significant diesel engines designed and manufactured in this proposed amendment would not hazcrds considemtion determination: accordance with General Design Cnterion interfere with fuel handling operations The Commission has provided (GDC)17 and to CFR 50. Appendix B.

and would not increase the probability standards for determining whether a of the accident.The new system would Rus, there is not a significant significant hazards consideration exists add filtration redundancy, would not reduction in the margin of safety.

as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed Accordingly, based on the licensees reduce filtration capacity, and therefore would not increase the consequences of amendment to an operating license for a findings with which the staff concurs' facility involves no significant hazards the staff has made a proposed an accident.

Standard 2-%e proposed considerations in accordance wi if,th a proposedoperation of the facility determination that the a amendment would not create the in" I' fi h d' amendment would not:(1) Involve a d ci ro any acc.i n nu1 c seq $ecsf cc ent p vi usly evaluated.The FHB ESF Air Treatment evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of System is similar in design features and Department Iouisiana State Um.versity, a new or different kind of accident from configuration to other such systems. * " "I*' **"" ~

Therefore, operation in accordance with any accident previously evaluated; or (3) ####FI##u###### " " "

this proposed amendment would not invol" 8 fiC88 T' UC " 8 Y Jr.. Esq.", Conner and Wetterhahn,1747 create new or different accidents from T e 1icensee as proWded the Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

those evaluated. Additionally the Washington, DC 20006.

physicalinstallation of the new system ds sfd s its u t 41 6 NRCPmfect Director: Walter R.

has been evaluated by the licensee who Bu h request for a license amendment which has concluded that the new system will not affect the seismic capability of the was supplemented by its September 26, Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket 1988 submission. No. 50458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 tan ard US proposed change does not involve a West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana e osed cmendment would not involve a significant increase in the probabihty or Date of amendmentrequest: August significant reduction in a margin of consequences of an accident previously 29.1986.

safety.He proposed changes provide evaluated because de Transamerica Delaval Description of amendment request cn increased margin of safety by e da ion R e >o Technical Specification 3.5.3, u res providing a separate ESF Air Treatment inspections that are more thorough than the Suppression Pool." establishes the System. Inspections currently being performed in 1.imiting Conditions for Operation for Based on the above discussior s, the accordance with manufacturers operability of the suppression pool.This Commission proposes to determine that recommendations. GSU's commitment to the amendment request adds the the proposed amendment would not DRQR Report is designed to increase Suppression Pool Pumpback System involve a significant hazards reliabihty cf the Division I and il diesel (SpPS) to Technical Specification 3.5.3 to consideration. generators.

ensure it is considered as required LocalPublic Document Room Thus,e there is no increa se in the probability equipment for suppression pool location: Government Publications Q",*t$uences of any accident previously operability.

Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, The proposed change does not create the During the development of the Education Buildmg, Commonwealth and possibility of a new or different kind of Technical Specifications for the full Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, accident from any accident previously powerlicense, CSU committed in a Pennsylvania 17126. evaluated because the change clarifles letter dated November 18,1985 (RBG-

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22. 1986 / Notices 37513 22622) to include the SPPS as part of the made a proposed determination that the of accident from any accident previously River Bend Technical Specifications to application involves no significant evaluated; or (3) involve a significant clarify that SPPS is a necessary hazards consideration. reduction in a margin of safety.

subsystem to ensure opetability of the Loco /Public Document Room The staff has reviewed the licensee's suppression pool. The NRC staff I.ocation: Government Documents request and finds that the proposed requested the development and use of Department. Louisiana State University, amendment:

limiting conditions for operation. Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70803.

Attorneyfor hcensee: Troy B. Conner, (1) Does not involve a significant surveillance requirements, and bases.

The application for amendment is to Jr., Esq., Conner and Wetterhahn.1747 increase in the probability or satisfy the GSU commitment to include Pennsylvania Avenue.NW consequences of an accident previously the provisions governing the SPPS as Washington. DC 20006. evaluated because 'he verification of part of the River Bend Technical NRC Project Director- Walter R. scram times can be based on a Specifications. Butler. percentage of rod insertion from fully Basis forproposedno significant withdrawn or on indicated rod position Iowa Electric 1.lght and Power Company, from fully withdrawn provided the hazards consideration determination: Docket Nc. 50-331, Duane Arnold The Commission has provided scram insertion times correspond to Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa either basis. Both the percentage s da s for det Date of omendment mquest: August insertion basis with corresponding g

ds n ile ation e ists scram times and the rod position bas,s as stated in 10 CFR 50 92. A proposed 29.1988. i amendment to an operating license for a Description of amendment request; with the corresponding scram times are The proposed amendment would revise utilized in the General Electric ODYN on idera ior s f opere of t e fa lit the Duane Arnold Energy Center Option B Computer Reisad Analysis. i d (DAEC) Technical Specification Sect'on Therefore. either basis for scram time 3.3.C to change the basis for verifying testing demonstrates the ability of the mend en would no 1)In olve a r d scram times from the present basis; control rod system to bring the reactor significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously scram timing to percentage of rod subcritical at a rate fast enough to evalua ted; or (2) Create the possibility of insertion, to scram timing to acts.al rod prevent fueldamage,i.e to prevent the position.The rod scram times in MCPR from becoming less than the a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Subsections 3.3.C.1 and 3.3.C.2 of safety limit.The change from percentage involve a significant reduction in a Secti n 3.3.C would be changed to insertion to equivalent even rod position margin of safety correspond directly with the rod in Section 3.3.C.3 will provide uniformity The licensee hhs provided the positions as utilized in the General in the basis of all rod scram timing following analysis of significant hazards Ekctric OM, Option B Computer activities in the plant. Changing the considerations in its August 29.1986 Reload Analysis. Changirg the scram scram tSne to directly correspond to tlie request for a license amendment. time in Subsection 3.3.C.3 of Section proposed even rod position 04 instead of 3.3.C to directly correspond to the 90% insertion is not necess1ry because The proposed change does not include a proposed even rod position 04 instead of rod position 04 la equivalent to 91.67%

$gn G ' e$fanfc enIpr'evi usfy nseque 90% inserted is not necessary because insertion and is therefore still es atuated because the change only identifies r d position 04 is equivalent to 91.6% consenative.

the SPPS as a necessary subsystem to ensure inserted and is therefore still (2) Does not create a possibility of a operabdity of the suppression poolThis c nservative.The Techmcal Specification Surveillance Requirement new or different kind of accident change does not invol.a a design change or physical change to the plant. 4.3.C fvould also be revised to clarify because neither the rod scram insertion i

Thus, there is no increase in n t, e probability rod scram time testing based on rod time requirements nor the equ,ipment or or consequences of any accident previously position rather than pe centage process involved has changea. Rod ,

evaluaMd. insertion. scram time testing based on rod position The proposed change does not create the The amendment also proposes to is conistent with established plant pussibility of a new or different kind of testing capabilities and procedures and administratively revise Technical accident from any accident previously win increase die accuracy of rod scram evaluated because this change only provides Specification numbering of subsections in the Bases discussions to match the time testing.

de ed a n tegra p of sup ression numbering system in th e Technical (3) Does not involve a significant pool s> stem. This change does not involve a Specification sections lieing addressed reduction in a margin of, safety because design change or physical change with and correct nomenclature errors in the the margin of safety denved from the respect to new or modified equipment. not basis discussions. General Electric ODYN Option B does it involve a change in the mode of Basis forproposedn )significanf Computer Analysis MCPR limits is operating existing equipment. hazards consideration :letermination; based on verifying average rod insertion

, Thus. no new accident scenario is The Commission has p ovided times utilized in the reload analysis. The r qui e$cn s f r su p s n standards (10 CFR 50.92[c)) for rod positions and correspondirg rod operability determining whether a significant scram times proposed in this The proposed change does not involve a hazards consideration exists. A amendment are utilized in the General significant reduction in the margin of safety proposed amendment :o an operating Electric ODYN Option B Computer because this clarification of requirements for license for a facility ic volves no Reload Analysis.Therefore, the MCPR suppression pool operability significantly significant hazards co asideration if limits defined by this analysis remain reduces the possibility of not considering operation of the facili y in accordance unchanged.The administrative changes SPPS as part of suppression pool operabdity. with the proposed atrendment would proposed in this amendment are to which would enhance safety rather than not (1) involve a significant increase in reduce the margin of safety.

achieve consistency in nomenclature the probability or cor. sequences of an throughout the Technical Specifications.

The staff concurs with the above accident previously evaluated: (2) create Therefore, the staff has made a analysis. Accordingly, the staff has the possibility of a new or different kind proposed determination that the

37514 Federal Register / Vol. 51 No. 204 / Wednesday. October 22, 1986 / Notices cpplication involves no significant insextability within 7 days of reducing accident from any accident previously hazards consideration. the shutdown margin instead of 24 evaluated.

LocoIPublic Document Room hours. (3) Although the trip surveillance location: Cedar Rapids Public Library. The prima y considoation in requirement is relaxed from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to 500 First Street. S. E., Cedar Rapids. extend;ng the surveillance time period seven days, there is no significant lowa 52401. for venfying CEA insertability is increase in the probability of a stuck Attorneyforlicensee: Jack Newman, whether there would be a significant CEA with the new surveillance i

Esquire. Kathleen H. Shes. Esquire. increase in the probability of a stuck requirement. As such, this change will Newman and Holtzinger.1615 L Street, CEA during the 7-day period of time as not include a significant reduction in NW Washington, DC. 20036. compared to the present 24. hour time margin cf safety.

NRCPm/ect Director: Daniel R. period. Consideration of the As the change requested by the Muller, configuration of the components that are licensee's September 25,1986 submittal

,. Po dWh% pm' used in CEA insertion indicate that satisfies the criteria of 50.92,it is Docket No. 50-382. Waterford Steam there is nothing which would cause a concluded that

(1) the proposed change Electric Station. Unit 3 St. Chrrles significant increase in the probability of does not constitute a significant hazards Parish, fwh a CEA becoming stuck.This is due to consideration as defined by 10 CFR the fixed geometry of these components 50.92; (2) there is a reasonable assurance Date ofAmendment Request: over the 7-day period that could elapse September 25.1986 that the health and safety of the public between rod drop time measurements will not be endangered by the proposed Description ofAmendment Request and shutdown margin reduction.The l change; and (3) this action will not result The proposed amendment would modify components considered include the fuel Technical Specification 3/4.10.1. in a condition which significz ntly alters assembly, the CEA. the CEA extension the impact of the station ori the SPECIAL'ITST EXCEPI10NS. shaft, the control element drive SHtrlT)OWN MARGIN. environment as descnbed in the NRC mechanism and the upper guide Techmcal Specification 3.10.1 structure. Also, since the CEAs will Final Environmental Statement.

sently allows the shutdown margin to insert upon loss of power, the Loco /Public Document Room reduced to less than the normal probability of a stuck CEA is not ocotion: University of New Orleans Operating shutdown margin Library. Louisiana Collection. Lakefront.

increased due to an electrical requirements during low power physics malfunction. New Orleans. Louisiana 70122.

testing provided that certam conditions This change is similar to changes Attorneyforlicerisee: Mr. Bruce W.

tre satisfied. One of these conditions issued to other CE plants. Churchill. Esq., Shaw. Pittman, Potts and (Surveillance Requirement 4.10.1.2) BasisforPmposedNo Significont Tr wbridge. 2300 N St NW.

stipulates that all Contml Element Was naton. DC 20037.

Hazards Considerations Determination:

Assemblies (CEAs) not fully inserted in The NRC staff proposes that the #NC##l * '8' the core be shown to be capable of full proposed change does not involve a Knighton. 'C#UI###

insertion when tripped from at least the significant hazards consideration 50% withdrawn position within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Louislana Power and IJght Company, because, as required by the criteria of 10 Docket No.50-382.Waterford Steam I prior to reducing the shutdown margin CFR 50.92(c), operation of the facility in to less than normal operating Electric Station. Unit 3, St. Charles accordance with the proposed Parish. loulslana.

requirements. The requested revision amendment would not:(1) Involve a would allow this surveillance to be significant increase in the probability or Date of Amendment Requese performed within 7 days of the consequences of an accident previously September 25,1986 shutdown margin reduction instead of Descripuon ofAmendmentRequest:

evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> as presently required. De proposed amendment would modify a new or different kind of accident from This modification is proposed to allow any accident previously evaluated; cr (3) Technical Specification 3/4.10.3, low power physics testing to be involve a significant reduction in the SPECIAL TEST EXCEPTIONS.

accomplished without an additional margin of safety. The basis for this REACTOR COOLANT LOOPS.

reactor trip to verify CEA insertability. proposed finding is given below. In order to perform certam physics he startup test preg am includes a CEA (1) ne proposed change does not tests at low thermal power levels. it is trip test before criticality to measure remove the trip surveillance necessary to bypass the core protection CEA drop times (reference Technical requirement. It merely allows for a 7-day calculators (CPCs). This is accomplished Specification 3.1.2.3). Following these surveillance requirement rather than the by manually bypassing the calculators measurements, criticality is achieved 24-hour surveillance requirement. During after increasing the CPC operating and low power physics tests are this interim there would be no bypass permissive setpoint from 10-*%

performed. CEA integral reactivity significant increase in the probability of power to a value that will allow physics worths are determined during this a stuck CEA since there is nothing testing to take place without incurnng a testing sequence and may require occurring during this period which DNBR-low or LpD-lQh reactor trip.

reduction of shutdown margin as would alter the fixed geometry of This adjustment is made to a bistable permitted by Technical Specification components associated with the rod setpoint in the log power circuitry.

3.10.1. Since the worth measurements time measurements.Therefore, the Consequently. Technical Specification are typically performed several days proposed change will not involve a 3.10.3.b requires that the Linear Power efter the CEA drop time measurements, significant increase in the probability or level-High trip setpoint be decreased the reactor must be tripped to verify consequences of any accident to less than or equal to 20% RKIED CEA insertability and satisfy previously evaluated. THERMAL POWER.This provides Surveillance Requirement 4.10.1.2.ne (2) his revision addresses a change additional assurance that a reactor trip requested revision would therefore in surveillance requirement and as such will occurin the event of an unplanned aliminate the need for en additional no new failure or accident path is power excursionwhile the operating reactor trip during low power physics created. Consequently, there will be no bypass permissive setpoint is set to a testing by requiring verification of CEA creation of a new or different kind of higher than normal value.

I

' Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices 3m5 The addition of Technical coverage. this proposed change can not chargins pumps operable. In add; tion.

Specificat'.on 310.3.c is lae,ing proposed involve a reduction in a margin of Table 3.1-1 will be replaced with a to provida an alternate means of safety. series of Tables (Tables 3.1-1 through ensuring a reactor trip prior to As the change requested by the 3.1-5) that provide the required boron exceeding the present limit for physics licensee's September 25,1986, submittal sampling frequency as a function of the testing at low thermal power levels. The satisfies the criteria of 50.92,it is core multiplication factor that must be CPC operating bypass permissive concluded that:(1) the proposed change adhered to whenever the boron dilution bistable serves the dual function of does not constitute a significant hazards alarm (s) is not operable. By monitoring permitting the Log Power Level-liigh consideration as defined by 10 CFR the baron concentration at these trip to be manually bypassed when the 50.92:l2) there is a reasonable assurance frequencies, the operators will have thermal power exceeds the operating that the health and safety of the public sufficient time to mitigate a boron bypass permissive setpoint.lf the will not be endangered by the proposed dilution event prio- to the loss of perm:ssive setpoint is increased to a change; and (3) this action will not rmit shutdown margin.

value greater than the Log Pcwer in a condition which significantly alters Basisforproposedno significant Level-liigh trip setpoint specified in the impact of the station on the hazards consideration determination:

Table 2.2-1 of Technical Specification environment as descri'oed in the NRC The NRC staff proposes that the 2.2.1. then a Low Power Level-High Final Environmental Statement. proposed change does not involve a reactor trip will occur if an unplanned LocalPublic Document Room siglificant hazards consideration power excursion takes place during Location:Univerisity of New Orleans beause, as required by the criteria of to physics testing. Therefore, the Log Library. Louisiana Collection. Lakefront. CFR 50.92(c). operafon of the facility in Power Level trip function may be used New Orleans Lou slana 7m22. ac:ordance with the proposed in place of the Linear Power Level trip Attorney for becaseet Nir. Bruce W.

amendment would net:(1) Involve a function to provide additional assurance Churchill. Esq Shaw. Fi;tman Potts and significant increase in the probbility or that a reactor trip wi!! occur in the event Trowbridge,2300 N St.. h"N. consequences of any accident of an unplanned pawer excursion during Washington, DC 20037. previously evaluated; or l2) Create the physics testing. - NRCProject Director: George W. pass bility of a new or different kind of Basis for ProposedNo S:;nificant Knighton.

accident from any accident previously

//azards Consideration Determmation: Louisiana Power and Light Company, evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant The NRC staff proposes that the Docket No. 50-382. Waterford Steam reduction in the margin of safety. The oes nvo ea

{'g,p se c ang , Electric Station. Unit 3. SL Charles basis for this proposed finding is given below.

because. as required by the criteria of to Parish. Louisiana Date of amendment request: October (1) This Specification is provided to CFR 50.92(c). operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 1.1988- ensure the operators have sufficient 068CTIP tion of amendment mquest time, from when they are first alerted to amendment would not:(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or The proposed change would revise a potential boron dilution.,to take the consequences of an accident previously Technical Specification 3.1.2.9. appropriate corrective action to mitigate evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of " Reactivity Control Systems. Baron the event. Normally, protection against a new or different kind of accident fro 1: Dilution". Surveillance Requirement this event is provided by two redimdant any accide'it previously evaluated; or (3) 4.1.2.9.4 and the associated Bases alarms that actuate when the existing Involve a significant reduction in the section (3/4.1.2.9). The reasons for this neutron flux doubles. With one or both margin of safety.The basis for this changeere:(1) The Cycle 2 core will of these alarms inoperable the Cycle 2 proposed finding is given below, have higher enriched fuel and is safety analyses have shown that by ,

(1) This proposed change would therefore more reactive than the Cycle 1 monitoring the RCS beton concentration increase the power level at which the core: (2) the Shutdown Margin for Cycle at the frequencies shown in Tables 3.1-1 CPC's enable the DNBR-Low and 2 is lower than it was for Cycle 1(when through 3.1-5 the operators have LPD-liigh reactor trips. Protection, all Control Element Assemblies are sufficient time to take the actions however, would still be provided inserted); and (3) it is desirable to have necessary to mitigate the event. Since through this increase by the Log Pov'er more than one charging pump operable this Specification applies only to the Level-High reactor trip. Since ampie when the reactor is in Mode 5 and the Baron Dilution event, and the Cycle 2 protection it. st;'l supplied. there will be Reactor Coolant System (RCS)is Safety Analyses have shown that the no significant increase m the piubsihty pmlinity dramed. Specifically, the consequences of this event are or consequences of an accident proposed change will allow the use of acceptable the proposed change will previously evaluated. two charging pumps when filling the not significantly increase the probab;1ity (2) Although this proposed change RCS as long as the k-eff is maintained at or consequences of any accident would alter the range of application for a value less than 0.96. previously evaluated.

certain trips, proper core protection Specification 3.1.2.9b currently (2) The proposed charige is primarily a would be still supplied. No other requires removing power to two result of changes in the Cycle 2 core functional changes are proposed to be charging pumps when the reactor is in parameters and the desire to use more made to these trips: consequently, this Mode 5 and the P.CS is partially drained. than one charging pump to fill the RCS l change can neither create nor involve a The proposed change would replace this following a refueling or following any l new path which may lead to a new or Specification with statements that allow maintenance that requires the RCS to be i different kind of accident. more than one charging pump to be partially drained.There has been no l (3) As stated above. the proposed operable depending on the physical change to the plant other than l change would alter the range of multiplication factor in the core. That is, ta allow an auditional charging puinp(s) apphcation for certam trip functions, if the k-eff is between 0.94 and 0.98 it is to be operable if the core multiplication Protection however, would still be permissible to have 2 charging pumpe- factor is low enough. The only accidem

provided for over this incr~ ease. Since operable or,if the k-effis less than 0.94, that could be caused by an additional

! there will be no reduction in trip it is perraissible to have all three charging pump in operation is a boren

37516 Federal Register / Vd. 51. N:. 204 / W:dn sdty. Octob;r 22, 1986 / Noticis (

dilution which has already been shown (1) Delete the definition of consideration. There' ore, in accordance to have acceptable results. Thus, the containment integrity in the Definitions with 10 CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 50.92, the proposed change will not create the Section of the TS since the definition following analysis has been performed possibility of a new or different kind of appears in the actual Technical by the licensee:

accident from any accident previously Specifications concerning containment evaluated, Much of this request consists of changes integrity. designed to clarify or simphfy the (3) The intent of this Specification is (2) Remove the term "where Specifications without altenng the actual to prevent a boron dilution svent or to approoriate" from Section 3.6. requirements. Other chanses correct prevent a loss of shutdown merg;n Emergency Core Cooling and misspelling or minor typographical errors in should a boron dilution event occur. Containment Spray Systems." and insert both the specificataans and Bases.

Normally, this event is precluded by a reference to Specification 3.9 for We have reviewed this proposal as isolating the primary makeup water or clarity. required by to CR 50.92 to determine by the operability of the high neutron (3) Restate Technical Specification whether a significant hazards consideration flux alarms which alert the operator 3.14B for clarity and delete a reference "* Y **i' ^ '""* ' 'Y I""' II"d3"8' I'

with sufficient time to take corrective to Cycle 7 which is no longer I $e proposed changes which are for the action.*lle action statements of this appropriate. purpose ofimproving clarity are mere Specification provide an alternate (4) Correct a misprint in the restructuring without altering intent or means to detect a boron dilution event description of the concentration term C. requirements or which correct typographical by monitoring the RCS boron for secondary coolant activity in errors. which have been categoncally concentration to detect any changes. Technical Specification 3.14. determined not to involve a sigmficant The frequencies specified in Table 3.1-1 (5) Divide the Technical Specification hazards consideration.

throt.gh 3.1-5 provide the operator veith Section 3.15 concerning reactor power From the foregoing we have concluded that sufficient time to recognize a decrease in enomalies into a Specification and the changes proposed would not:

the RCS boron concentrat..on and take Remedial Action for clarity, and the 1. Involve a significant increase in the the appropriate ::orrective action prior to term steady-state concentrations is used P' h*[j'Y,','[y,"7"*" 'I '" Cid'"'

the loss of shv%!vwn margin.More pre to distinguish brief transients from frequent cher.ks dthe RCS boron 2. Crea e the possibility of a new or ongoing conditions. different kind of accident from any accident concentration am ec.,uired when more (6) Add the term " fluoride" to the previously analyzed: or charging pumps art herable or when reactor coolant sample chemistry 3. Involve a significant reduction in the there is a higher rAe ruidplication requirement of Technical Specification margin of safety.

factor because tby !UN time Section 4.2 to be consistent with th' lience, no significant hazards available for the opatWOW take requirements of Technical Specifications consideration exists.

corrective action.*Ih thf sm csed Section 3.18.

change does not result in a migv3 cant (7) Delete the requirement to calibrate The staff has reviewed the licensee's reduction m the margin of safe, no significant hazards consideration the post-accident hydrogen monitor m As the change requested by the determination and agrees with the Table 4.2-2 of Technical Specification licensee's October 1,1980 submittal licensee's analysis.Therefore, based on Section 4.2 as it is included in Table this review, the staff proposes to n ! de  : 1 thepropo e change (8 Revise Technical Specification

• does not constitute a significant hazards Section 5 8 to indicate the specific

,n en involves o fi ant consideration as defined b 10 CFR revision to Regulatca Guide 1.33 to hazards consideration.

50.92: (2) there is reasonab e esturance which Maine Yankee has been and is LocalPublic Document Room that the health and safety of the public currently committed in their Quality location: Wiscasset Public Library, High will not be endangered by the proposed Assurance Program. Street Wiscasset. Maine.

chsnge; and (3) this action will not result (9) Change Table 4.1-2 of Technical Attorneyforlicensee J.A. Ritscher, in 3 condition which significantly alters Specification Section 4.1 to reflect the Esq Ropes and Gray,225 Franklin the impact of the station on the upgrade to the Refueling Water Storage Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02210.

environment as described in the NRC Tank levelinstrumentation made during NRCProject Director: Ashok C.

Final Environmental Statement. the 1985 refueling outage and clarify the Thadani.

Locc1Public Document Room function being tested as that part of the Nebraska Public Power District, Docket Location University of New Orleans recirculation actuation signal Library, louisiana Collection. Lakefront, in addition typographical errors No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Statior, .

Nemaha County, Nebraska New Orleans. Louisiana 70122. would be corrected and changes would Attorneyforlicensee:Mr. Bruce W. be made to the Bases ior TS 3.11,3.22 Dates of amendment mquests: \

Churchill, Esq., Shaw, Pittman Potts and and 3.24 to correct cross references, February 10.1988; September 9,1986.

Trowbridge. 2300 N St., NW., clarify applicability requirements, and Description of amendment request:

Washington. DC 20037. correct misprints to conform with the The February 10.1986 submittal we a NRCPmfectDirector George W. Final Safety Analysis Report. previously published in the Federal Knighton. Basisforpreposedno significant Register on April 9,1986 (51 FR 11230).

ame hazards ccasiderotion determination: The September 9,1986 submittel revised wer y mpany, The Commission has provided the February 10,1986 application to

[ni standards for determining whether a A mic Power Station, uncoln County' conform to Standard Technical significant hazard exists as stated in 10 Specifications (NUREG-0123). The l CFR 50.92(c).10 CFR 50.91 requires that amendment would modify the Technical '

Date of amendment request: January at the time a licensee requests an Specifications (TS) applicable to high 29,1908. revised July 29.1988 and amendment it must provide to the radiation areas: (1)It would be specified August 28,1986. Commission its analysis.using the Description of amendment request:

that measurements for the determination standards in 10 CFR 50.92, about the of high radiation areas are to be made at The proposed amendment would: lasue of no significant hazards a dinnce of 18 inches from the source

.- ., l Fcditzl Registir / Vol 51. No. 2M / Wedn sday. October 22. 1986 / Notics 37517 cf radiation:(2)" Barricade" would be consideration if operation of the facility Nuclear Regulatosy Commission's clarified as including " doors, yellow and in accordance with the proposed " Policy Statement on Engineedng magenta rope, turnstile" or other device amendment would not:(t) Involve a Expertise on Shift." Generic Letter 86-to impede physical movement across the significant increase in the probability or 04. Specifically, the Shift Technical entrance or access to the radiation area; consequences of an accident previously Advisor would be a licensed Senior (3) The requirement that entrance to evaluated, or (2) Create the possibility of Reactor Operator and would also high radiation areas be controlled by th:, a new or different kind of accident from perform the function of Assistant shift supervisor would be replaced by a any accident previously evaluated, or (3) Station Shift Supervisor. In addition, the requirement that it be controlled by a involve a significant reduction in a " equivalency" option to a bachelor's {

Special Work Permit. Radiation margin of safety. degree in a scientific or engineering protection personnel and those they are The proposed change does not alter discipline would be removed from the escortmg would be exempt from the existing equipment or surveillances. it Shift Technical Advisor job description requirement for a Special Work Permit will necessitate changes to radiation and the alternative for a Professional during the performance of their assigned protection procedures and the FSAR for Engineer's license would be added.

duties while following plant radiation the sake of uniformity and consistency Basis forproposedno significant protection procedures for entry into high between documents, but such hazards consideration determination radiation areas:(4) A requirement would procedural changes are of an The Commission has provided be added that personnel entering high administrative nature, do not impact standards for determining whether a radiation areas, unless provided with a plant operations, and will improve significant hazards consideration exists monitoring device which continuously control of high radiation areas.The proposed change would thus not affect as stated in to CFR 50.92(c).

indicates the dose rate. be provided ne licensee has presented its with a monitoring device which the probability or consequences of an determination of no significant hazards continuously integrates the dose rate accident previously evaluated.

consideration as follows:

and alarms at a preset integrated dose. The proposed change does not or with a qualified escort with a dose introduce any new mode of operation. to Cm 50.91 requires that at the time a and due to its admimstrative nature, licensee requests an a:nendment. It must rate monitoring device who Is dces not invo1ve any 1imiting conditions provide to the Commission its analysis, using responsible for providing positive the standards in Section 50.92 about the issue f r operation or surveillances.

control over the activities in the area of no significant hazards consideration.

and shall perform periodic dose rate Therefore. the proposed amendment Therefore, in accordance with to CFR 50.91 monitoring at a specified frequency; and d es not create the possibility of a new and to CFR 50.92, the following analysis has (5) Additionalrequirements would be or different kind of accident from any been performed:

added applicable for high radiation previously evaluated. The opemtion of Nine Afde Jbint Unit I in areas accessible to personnelin which a No safety limits or limiting safety accordance with the proposed amendment major portion of the body could receive system settings prescribed by the wdi not mvo/re o sigmficant increase in the in one hour a dose greater than 1000 Technical Specifications would be probabd ty or consequences of an c ccident affected.The proposed changes would F #v mrem. These additional requirements provide for improved administrative P"fg8/,dr i

e %s a W h would require that: Technical Specifications into agreement with trols for Mgh radiation anas and

. . areas accessible to personnel with the NRC Policy Statement on Engineering dose rates such that a major portion of the e safety ma@ b any Expertise on Shift.ne Assistant Station body could receive in one hour a dose greater manne?- Shift Supervisor function, training and than 1000 mrem shall be provided with Since the application for amendment 6ducational background will meet the locked doors to prevent unauthonzed entry. involves proposed changes that are applicable NRC requirements. Qualifications Doors shall remain locked except dunna encompassed by the criteria for which of other staff members has not changed, periods of access by personnel under an no significant hazards consideration Therefore. this change will not increase the approsed SWp which shall specify the dose exists, the staff has made a proposed probabdity or consequences of an accident.

rates in the immediate work area. For determination that the application The opemuon o/Nine Afde Ibint Unis : le individual high radiation areas accessible to -amo ance wah the pmpondamudmmt involves no significant hazards personnel that art Iocated withm large areas, g will not Create the possibility of a new or such as the containment. or areas where no "# "# #"

enclosure exists for purposes oflocking and al / c Document Room pleFiously eVOiuCled, "

no enclosure can be reasonably constructed locofion: Auburn Public 1.ibrary,118 The proposed changes are administrative around the individual areas then that area 15th Street. Auburn. Nebraska 68305. and do not create the possibility of a new or shall be barricaded and conspicuously Attorneyfor hcensee: Mr. G. D. differerit kind of accident.

posted. Area radiation monitors that have Watson. Nebraska Public Power The opemtion ofNine MdeIbint Unit in been set to alarm if radiation levels increase. District. Post Office Box 499. Columbus, accodance with the pmposed amendment proside both a visual and an audible signal to Nebraska 66G01. willnot involve a significant reduction in a alert personnelin the area of the increase. NRCProject Dirwtor: Daniel R. * '8 id /8 lF-Stay times or continuous surveillance by Muller" The proposed administrative changes do radiation protection personnel qualified in not change staffing levels or staff trainig radiation protection procedures to provide Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Consequently, there is no reduction in margin additional positive exposure control over the Docket No. 50-220. Nine Mile Point of safety.

activities within the area. Nuclear Station Unit No.1, Oswego ne staff has reviewed the licensee's Bosisforproposedno significant County, New York no significant hazards consideration hazords considerotion determinotion: Date of amendment request: determination and agrees with the The Commission has provided September 15,1988. licensee's analysis.Therefore, the staff standards for determining waether a Descdption of amendment request: proposes to determine that the significant hazards determination exists The proposed amendment would modify application for amendment involves ne as stated in 10 CFR 50.02(c). A proposed Technical Specifica tion (TS) Sections significant hazards consideration.

amendment to an opera' ting license 6.2.2 and 8.3 and Tabla 6.2-1 to reflect Locc1Public Document Rooor involves no significant hazards changes required to conform to the locatir n:

37518 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 2M / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices State University of New York, significant hazards considerations ne changes are administrative in Penfield 1.ibrary, Reference and because it is a clarification of language. nature and do not result in any changes Documents Department, Oswego, New LocalPublic Document Room to the design or functioning of the plant.

York 13126. Location: Specifically, there are no physical Attorneyforlicensee: Waterford Public 1.ibrary,49 Rope modifications being made to the plant Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Conner & Ferry Road, Waterford Connecticut and no changes to the way in which the Wetterhahn. Suite 1050,1747 06385. plant is controlled by the operators.

Pennsylvania Avenue.NW., Attorneyforlicensee Gerald Garfield, Therefore, the proposed changes do not Washington, DC 20006. Esq., Day, Berry, and Howard. City affect the probability or consequences of NRCProject Director: Place. Hartford, Connecticut 00103-3499. any accident previously evaluated.

John A.Zwolinski. NRCPmfect Director: Vincent S. (2) Create the possibility of a new or Noonan different kind of accident from any Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Docket No. 50423, Millstone Nuclear Omaha Public Power District Docket accident previously evaluated.

Power Station Unit 3 New London No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit Since the changes do not result in any County, Connecticut No.1, Washington County, Nebraska plant modifications or operating N *' '

Date of applicationforamendment: Date of amendment request: P'*'f,R",*g*,'"n

,, , g'gf7g y; August 28,1988 September 26,1986.

accident

• Description of amendment request: Description of amendment mquest:

The amendment would change the (3; gn,olve any reduction in the The amendment would revise Technical Specification Section 6.5.3.2 to change Technical Specifications to incorporate ma n of afet the quorum required to conduct a organizational changes. Specifically, it ,,p {,e p rpose of the changes is meeting of the Millstone Unit No. 3 would change titles to reflect recent to reflect the new titles and Nuclear Review Board to four. By promotions and incorporate some organizational restructuring ,

replacing "enough to constitute a organizational restructuring. implemented by the licensee. This wd, l majority of the assigned members,"with Organizational changes include moving not affect safety margins in a positive or

• • four" Section 6.5.3.2 will be consistent I the training program from the negative manner.

with the information contained in the organizational chart for the Fort Based on the abov i i Millstone Units No.1 and 2 Technical Calhoun Station staff and placing it proposes to determ, me thate,thethe Comm,ss,on proposed Specifications. under the newly titled position of amendment involves no s,gmficant i

Basisforproposedno significant Manager. Administrative and Training hazards considerations.

hazanis consideintion determination: Services: Engineering and Electric LocalPublic Document Room The staff has evaluated this proposed Operations will report to a Vice location: W. Dale Clark 1.ibrary, 215 amendment and determined that it President in charge of EnFi neering and South 15th Street Omaha, Nebraska involves no significant hazards General Services instead of a Senior 68102.

considerations. According to 10 CFR Vice President; a new position of Attorneyforlicensee LeBoeuf, Lamb, 50.92(c). a proposed amendment to an Supervisor-Outage Projects has been Idiby, and MacRae 1333 New operating license involves no significant created; and the positions of Supervisor. Hampshire Avenue, NW., Wash:ngton, hazards considerations if operation of Administra*ive Services and Supervisor. DC 20036.

the facility in accordance with the Security are now shown on Figure 5-2. NRCPiv/ect Director: Ashok C.

proposed amendment would not: Figures 5-1 and 5-2 have been revised to Thadani (1) involve a significant increase in reflect,these organizational changes. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the probability or consequences of an Basisforpreposedno significonf Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo accident previously evaluated; or hazards consideration determmation:

(2) create the possibility of a new or Canyon Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.1 and 2, The Commission has provided guidance San Luis Obispo County, California different kind of accident fram any concerning the application of the accident previously evaluated; or standards for determining whether a Dateformquest amendment: July 13, I (3) involve a significant reduction in a significant hazards consideration exists 1986 (Reference LAR 86-08).

margin of safety. by providing certain examples (51 FR Description offor request amendment:

The proposed amendment clarifies the 7751) of amendments that are The proposed amendments would revise j language used to convey the considered not likely to involve the Diablo Canyon combined Technical requirement for the number of NFB significant hazards considerations. Specifications (T.S.) for Units 1 and 2 to members necessary to constitute a Example (i) relates to a change that is implement relaxed axial offset contrel quorum.The current specification administrative in nature, intended to (RAOC) for Unit 2 after 8000 MWD /

contains a requirement for a quorum achieve consistency or correct an error. MTU burnup in Cycle 1 and upon NRC size ranging from 4 members to 8 The proposed changes are approval of the Unit 2 emerger,cy core members, depending on the size of the representative of Example (i)in that cooling system (ECCS) reevaluation NRB.The proposed change would they reflect title and organizational using the BART Evaluation Model.

require a minimum quorum of four changes that are administrative in ROAC is currently being used for Unit 1 members. This change would bring the nature only.The changes are designed only. The proposed revision to Technical Millstone Unit No. 3 Technical to assist in the more efficient utilization Specification 3/4.2.1, " Axial Flux Specifications into agreement with those oflicensee staff personnel. Difference," includes RAOC for Unit 2 of Mdistone Units No.1 and 2 and the The staff has also concluded that the and revises the existing Technical l Westinghouse Standard Technical proposed changes meet the criteria of 10 Specification 3/4.2.1.1 to be applicable l Specifications. CFR 50.92. A discussion of the criteria to Units 1 and 2. 'nie bases for Technical i Although the proposed change is not follows: Specification 3/4 2.1 will also be revised enveloped by the three criteria in 10 (11 Involve any significant increase in to include RAOC for Unit 2.

CFR 50.92(c), the staff believes this the probability or consequences of an These changes to implement RAOC proposed amendment involves no accident previously evaluated. are based upon the analysis performed

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices 37519 by Westinghouse for Cycle 1 of Diablo acceptable.Therefore, the staff proposes pressure of greater than or equal to 185 Canyon Unit 2. The NRC-approved to determine that a no significant psig versus the proposed differential procedure outlined in WCAP-10216--PA hazards consideration is involved in the pressure of 157 psid.

was used for the analysis. A heat flux proposed amendment. Basisforproposedno significant hot channel factor (Veof 2.32 was used LocalPublic Document Room hazards consideration determination:10 in the analysis. In accordance with the Location: California Polytechnic State CFR 50.92 states that a proposed NRC March 3,1988, exemption from a Universi*y Library, Government amendment willinvolve a no significant requirement of 10 CFR 50.46, Unit 21s Documents and Maps Department San hazards consideration if the proposed restricted to a maximum Foof 2.30. Luis Obispo, California 93407.

.4ttorneys for Licensee: Philip A. amendment does not:(i) Involve a PG&E letter DCIc86-036, dated February significant increase in the probability or 14.1988. provided information Crane, Esq.. Richard F. Locke, Esq, consequences of an accident previously dernonstrating that the results of the Pacific Cas and Electric Company.P.O. evaluated: or (ii) Create the possibility ECCS reevaluation with the BART Box 7442, San Francisco, California of a new or different kind of accident Model are expected to confirm a 94120 and Bruce Norton. Esq., Norton from any accident previously evaluated:

sufficient calculated peak clad and West. P.O. Box 10569, Phoemx.

or (iii) Involve a significant reduction in temperature margm with an Faof 2.32. Arizona 85064.

a margin of safety. Accordingly the staff BasisforProposedNo Sigmficant, NRCProject Director:Stesen A.

Varga. performed the fallowing analyais:

flazards Consideration Determmation:

The Commission has provided (i) and (ii)-Does the proposed Portland General Electric Company. et amendment involve a significant standards for determining whether xs a.al,tsDocket No.56-344 Trojan Nuclear increase in the probability or Plant, Columbia County, Oregon

b. 5!(c) proposei Date of amendment request July 17, consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or create the possibility of a amendment to an operating lice:tse for a facility involves a no significant hazards 1988. new or different kind of accident from consideration if operation of the facility Description of amendment re7uese any previously evaluated?

in accordance with the proposed The amendment proposes changes to the he licensee has stated that pump amendment would not:(1) Involve a surveillance requirements for the discharge pressure is not a true significant increase in the probability or emergency core cooling system pumps, indication of pump performance since it consequences of an accident previously as stated in Sections 4.1.2.3,4.1.2.4, e id is dependent upon pump suction evaluated: (2) create the possibility of a 4.5.2.1 of the Technical Specifications pressure. A verification of pump new or different kind of accident from (TS). The following specific changes are differential pressure provides a more any accident previously evaNated; or (3) proposed: accurate means of assessing pump involve a significant reduction in a TechnicalSpecification f.L2.J-The performance. Furthermore these values margin of safety, surveillance requirement for the for the centrifugal charging pumps and The licensee has determined that the centrifugal charging pump (CCP) safety injection pumps are consistent proposed revision will not; operability requirement for Modes 5 and with those used in the Final Safety (1) involve a significant increase in 6 will be changed to:" verifying, that on Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 15 the probability or consequences of an recirculation flow, the pump develops a accident analysis.

accident previously evalurted because dif ferential pressure greater than or the results of the Westinghouse equal to 2400 psid when tested pursuant ,"

^

g e d w evaluation confirm that the full range of to Techsucal Specification 4.0.5.

normal and accident conditions possible TecbmcalSpecificat;on 4.L2.4-%e requirement for the RHR pumps should with the proposed RAOC limits are surveillance requirement for the CCP be 157 psid at 600 gpm recirculation consistent with the safety analysis in operability requirement for Modes 1,2. II w. Although the value of157 psid is 8 the FSAR (Update, Revision 1). The 3. and 4 will be changed to: " verifying, psi lower than the current limit of 165 analysis is based on a Westinghouse that on recirculation flow, each pump psi, the RHR system will still meet its safety evaluation using the NRC. develops a differential pressure greater design function of cooling the RCS to approved procedure outlined in WCAP- than or equal to 2400 psid when tested and maintaining the RCS at shutdown 10216-PA.The Westinghouse evaluation pursuant to Technical Specification temperatures, providing low-head generates axial flux difference as a 4.0.5.- injection and recirculatica during LOCA function of power that is used as input TechnicalSpecification 4.12.i-%e conditions, and transferring viater in the accident analyses. surveillance requirement for the ECCS between the Refueling Water Storage (2) Create the possibility of a new or pump performance verification will be Tank and the refueling cavity. During different kind of accident from any changed to: "By verifying that each of cooldown operations, flow through the accident previously evaluated as the following pumps develops the heat exchangers meets the design basis confirmed in the plant-epecific indicated differential pressure on of 3,000 gpm as specified in TS 4.9.8.1.

Westinghouse safety evaluation recirculation flow when tested pursuant The most limiting 1.OCA analysis is for discussed above. to Technical Specification 4.0.5: that of a large break.The new value of (3) Involve a significant reduction in (1) Centrifugal charging pump greater RHR pump head requires an additional the margin of safety as confirmed in the than or equal to 2400 psid, 0.25 seconds of accumulator / safety plant-specific Westinghouse safety (2) Safety injection pump greater than injection flow to achieve the peak clad evaluation discussed above for the full or equal to 1455 psid. and temperature (PCT) turn-around. This range of normal and accident conditions (3) RHR pump greater than or equal to 0.25 seconds of additional heatup results possible with the proposed change to 157 psid." in an 11 *F increa se of PCT to 2001 *F.

the Technical Specifications involves a The current Technical Specifications This PCT of 2001 *F is well within the no significant hazards consideration. require verification of the respective 2200 *F 10 CFR 50.48 timlL The third The NRC staff has raviewed the pumps' discharge pressure rather than function, the transfer of RCS water for proposed amendment request and the the differential pressure. The current TS refueling, la a nonsafety-rela ted licensee's determination and finds it also specifies RHR pump discharge function.

37520 Federzl Regilt:r / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wzdntsday. Octob:r, 22, 1986 / Notices As such, the proposed changes do not Electric Company.121 S.W. Salmon Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, (i) increase the probability or Street. Portland. Oregon 97204. DC 20006.

consequences of an accident, and (ii) NRCPmfectDirector: Steven A. NRCProject Director: Vincent S.

create a new or different kind of Varga. Noonan.

(i) es the proposed amendment Public Service Electric and Gas Sacramento Municipal Utility District, involve a significant reduction in a Company. Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50 Docket No. 50-312. Rancho Seco margin of safety'I 311. Salem Nuclear Generating Station. Nuclear Generating Station. Sacramento The licensee stated that the margin of Unit Nos.1 and 2. Salem County, New County, California safety (the capability of boron injection Jersey Date of amendment request; and emergency core cooling) provided Date of amendments mquest: October November 8,1985 (Supersedes by the safety injection. charging and 3.1988, amendment request dated November 14.

RHR pumps will be improved by Description of amendments request: 1984. In its entirety).

replacing the imprecise requirements ne proposed amendments would revise Description of amendment mquest:In with those specified in this amendment Technical Specification 5.3.1 for Salem response to Generic Letter 83-28. an request which will produce more precise Unit Nos.1 and 2 in order to allow for automatic shunt trip attachment has results by changing the units from psi to reconstitution of fuel assemblies been installed at Rancho Seco.

paid. containing defective rods. De current Accordingly. the proposed amendment The safety inj.ection and centrifugal Technical Specification 5.3.1 states that would incorporate into the Technical charging pump heads are the original each fuel assembly shall contain 264 fuel Specifications (TSs) necessary Limiting numbers used by Westinghouse in the rods clad with Zircaloy-4. The proposed Conditions for Operation (LCO) and FSAR Chapter 15 accident analysis and. change would allow for a reduction in surveillance requirements for the shunt thus, no reduction in the margin of the number of fuel rods per assembly in trip attachment and applicable sil; con safety is being made. While a reduction cases where leaking fuel rods are controlled rectifiers (SCRs). Specifically, m the requirement of RHR pump head identified and replaced with either filler TS LCOs in section 3.5.1 will be f safety $e res$s f he e an e sin rods (consisting of either Zircaloy-4 or affected, including associated da en stee4 macadesy 4 meWance requkemems and bases clearly fallinside the acceptance criteria of the Standard Review plan section B.3. permit utilization of the remaining statements.

Basisforproposedno significant energy in the fuel assemblies contau, u,ng

%e RHR pump will still be capable of meeting design flow requirements defective fuel rods. hazards considemten determinatwn:

through the RHR heat exchcngers and a Basisforproposedno sigm,icantf, As a consequence of the Salem Anticipated Transient Without Scram 199 'F margin to PCT will be maintained. hazards considemtwn Jeterminaten:

As such. the proposed changes do not %e Commission has provid-d guidance (ATWS) event. Item 4.3 of Genenc significantly reduce a margin of safety. concerning the application of the Letter 83-28 established requirements The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a for automatic actuation of a shunt trip guidance concerning the application of significant hazards consideration exists attachment on reactor trip breakers.

thesa standards by providing certain by providing certain examples (51 FR Furthermore, licensees were instructed examples (March 6.1988. 51 FR 7751). 7751).The example of actions which to submit appropriate TS change Examples of amendments that are involve no significant consideration requests prior to declaring the modified considered not likely to involve include Example (iii) which states: "For system operable. Item 4.4 required the significant hazards considerations are a nuclear power reactor. a change TS changes to also include testing of the (ii) a change which constitutes an resulting from a nuclear reactor core SCRs. which interrupt control rod additional limitation. restriction or reloading. If no fuel assemblies power.

control not presently included in the significantly different from those found Guidance for submitting amendment technical specifications, e.g., a more previously acceptable to the NRC for a requests was subsequently provided by stringent surveillance requirement; and previous core at the facility in question the Commission's staff in Generic 1.etter (vi) a change which either may result in are involved.nis assumes that no 85-10.

some increase to the probabihty or significant changes are made to the Based on guidance from Generic consequences of a previously analyzed acceptance criteria for the technical latter 85-10 and Babcock & Wilcox accident or may reduce in some way a 8pecifications, that analytical methods Owners Group, the licensee has safety margin, but where the results of used to demonstrate conformance with submitted a TS change request following the change are clearly within all technical specifications and regulations the guidelines prescribed by 10 CFR acceptable criteria with respect to the are not significantly changed and that 50.92 for determining no significant system or component specified in the the NRC has previously found such hazards considerations. The licensee Standard Review Plan. . . . methods acceptable." The reconstituted has concluded from their unalysis that The staff has reviewed the licensee's assemblies will meet the original design operation of Rancho Seco in accordance r.o significant hazards analysis and criteria. The analytical methods used with this proposed amendment:

concludes that the proposed changes are will remain unchanged. Therefore, the 1. Does not involve a significant within the scope of the Commission's staff proposes to determine that the increase in the probability or cited examples.Thus, the staff proposes proposed change, the use of ccnscquences of an accident previously to determine that the requested changes reconstituted fuel assemblies does not evaluated.

do not involve e significant hazards pose a significant hazards 2.Does not create the possibility of a consideration. consideration. new or different kind of accident from LocalPublic Document Room LocalPublic Document Room any accident previously evaluated. and location: Multnomah County Library, locatwn: Salem Free Library.122 West 3. Does not involve a significant 801 S.W.10th Avenue. Portland. Oregon. Broadway. Salem. New Jersey 0807. reduction in a rMrgin of safety.The Attorneyforlicensee:J.W. Durham. Attorneyforlicensee: Conner and Commission's staff has reviewed the Senior Vice President. Portland General Wetterhann Suite 1050,1747 licensee's submittal for amending the

Fcd:ral R; gist;r / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notic;s 37521 Rancho Seco TSs. This amendment Specification change will delete the significant changes are made to the proposes to expand TS section 3.5.1 and maximum total weight limitation per acceptance criteria for the technical Table 4.1-1 to provide LCOs and fuel rod contained in the Design specifications. that the analytical surveillance requiremeMs for specific Features Section. methods used to demonstrata components of the reactor trip system. Basis forproposedno significant conformance with the technical i.e.. control rod drive trip breakers, the hazards considemtion determination: specifications and regulations are not diverse trip features and the regulating The actual uranium weight has no significantly changed, and that NRC has control rod power SCR electronic trips, bearing on the power limits, power previously found such methods in accordance with the guidance operating level or decay heat rate. acceptable." The proposed change provided in Generic Letter 85-10. Technical Specifications on power and matches the quoted example.

Adding requirements for diverse trip power distribution control the fission Therefore. based on these features, due to the addition of the shunt rate and, hence, the rate of decay heat considerations and the example given trip attachment, and SCR electronic trips production.The composition of the fuel above, the Commission has made a will assure the reliability of the reactor is closely monitored to assure proposed determination that the trip system is not reduced due to the acceptable fuel performance for such amendment request involves no inoperability of any component.Thus, things as thermal conductivity, swellin8 significant hazards consideration.

these TS requirements will constitute an and densification. Fission product LocalPublic Document Room additional control and not reduce the generation is not sensitive to the mass of location: Fairfield County Library, margin of safety. fueliavolved but to the power level. As Garden and Washington Streets.

This proposed amendment is in the long as the power generated by tne core Winnsboro. South Carolina 29180.

same category as Example (ii) of is unaffected, there will be no significant Attorneyforlicensee: Randolph R.

amendments that are considered not impact on the radiological source terms. Mahan. South Carolina Electric and Gas likely to involve sigmficant hazaids Uranium mass has no impact on Company. P.O. Box 764, Columbia, considerations (51 FR 7751)in that the emergency core cooling system loss of South Carolina 29218.

change constitutes an additional control coolant accident (LOCA) analyses. NRCProject Director Lester S.

not presently included in the TSs. LOCA analyses are sensitive to Rubenstein.

Therefore, since the application for parameters such as pellet diameter, amendment involves proposed changes pellet-clad gap, stack height shrinking Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket that are similar to an example for which factor and pellet density as they relate Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah no significant hazards considerations to pellet-temperature and volumetric Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. Ilamilton exist, the Commission has made a heat generation. Individual fuel rod County. Tennessee proposed determination that the uranium weight, as currently reported in Date of amendment request: March 4.

application for amendment involves no the Techmcal Specifications, is not 1983, as supplemented September 30, significant hazards considerations. explicity modeled in any non.LOCA 1988.

l.oco/ Public Document Room event. Total uranium present in the core .

s so "

location: Sacramento City-County is input into the transient analyses, but dm o Library. ,828 i Street. Sacramento, is generated using a methodology Califorma 95814. Independent of the value presented m. License Condition 2.C.(34) for Unit 1 and Attorneyforlicensee: David S. the Technical Specifications. 2414) for Mt 2 to revise the Kaplan. Sacramento Municipal Utility The mass of uranium is accounted for implementation date for the ,

District,6201 S Street. P.O. Box 15830. In the standard fuel rod design through modification necessary to comp 1y wirh Sacramento, California 95813. appropriate modeling of the fuel pellet Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.97, Revision 2.

AtlCProject Director: John F. Stolz. geometry and initial fuel density. Basis forProposedno significant Variations in uranium misse associated hazards consideration determmation:

South Carolina Electri* *"d C with allowable as. built variations, but ne reason for the proposed change is to Company, South Carolina Public Service satisfy the schedule requirements Authority, Docket No. 50495, Virgil C. within the specification limits for the pellet dimensions and initial density, are approved by the staff in its June 15,1985, Summer Nuclear Station. Unit 1 letter from E. Adensam to it G. Parris, accounted for in the reactor core design Fairfield County, South Carohna " Issuance of Orders Confirming analyses and therefore have no impact Date of amendment request on margin to reactor core design criteria. Licensee Commitments on Emergency September 11,1986. The fuel rod uranium weight. currently Response Capabilities." In the june 15.

Description of amendment request: found in the Technical Specifications is 1985. letter, the staff approved the South Carolina Electric and Gas not a direct input to the analyses of implementation pchedule for RG 1.97, Company requests a revision to the e ther maximum seismic /LOCA fuel Revision 2; however, it required that the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station assembly dynamic response or the licensee commitrr.ent be confirmed by Technical Specifications. Design seismic response of the reactor vessel seperate license amendment.

Features Section 5.3.1, " Fuel and internals. He Commission has provided Assemblies." of the Technical The Commission has provided examples (51 FR 7744) of actions not Specifications identifies a maximum guidance concerning the application of likely to involve a significant hazards total fuel red weight of 1766 grams of these standards by providing certain consideration. Example (i) of this uranium. Recent improvements to the examples (51 FR 7751). One of these, guidance states that,"A pure'y fuel design, including an as-built density Example (iii), involving no significant administrative change to technical increase and chamfered pellets with a hazards considerations i ". . . a change specifications: For example, a change to reduced dish, have increased fuel weight resulting from a nuclear reactor core achieve consistency throughout the slightly. These weight increases will reloading. if no fuel assemblies technical specifications, correction of an cause the maximum fuel rod weight in significantly different from those found error. or a change in nomenclature" subsequent fuel cycies to exceed the previously acceptable to the NRC for a would not itkely constitute a sinnificant currently specified maximum value of previous core at the facility in question hazard.Re staff has reviewed the 1766 grams. The proposed Technical are involved. This assumes that no proposed amendments and concludes

37522 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices 1

l that they fall within the envelope of consequences of an accident previously Briefdescription ofomendment:The 4 Example (i). evaluated, because the proposed proposed amendment would modify the Accordingly, the staff proposes to changes continue to require that the reactor trip system instrumentation determine that the requested training program must meet or exceed setpoints contained in Technical amendments do not involve a significant the requirements of section 5.5 of ANSI / Specification Table 2.2-1 to incorporate hazards consideration. ANS N18.1-1971 and the additional increased uncertainties related to Loco /Public Document Room supplemental requirements as stipulated resistance temperature detector errors location: Chattanooga-Handiton County in Specification 6.4.1; or (2) create the identified during high temperature Bicentennial Library,1001 Broad Street, possibility of a new or different kind of calibration.

Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401. accident than previously evaluated. Date ofpublication ofindividuol Attorney forlicensee: Lewis E. because the training program will notice in Federal Register: September 25.

Wallace, Acting General Counsel, continue to meet ANSI /ANS 1986 (51 FR 34169).

Tennessee Valley Authority 400 requirements, and therefore no new or Expiration dote ofindividuolnotice:

Commerce Avenue.E11B33, Knoxville, different kinds of accidents are October 27,1966 Tennessee 37902. conceivable; or (3) Involve a significant loco /Public Document Room NRC Project Director: B. J. reduction in a margin of safety, because locotion: Emporia State University, Youngblood. there are no safety margins threatened William Allen White Library,1200 Washington Public Power Supply by the proposed change. Commercial Street. Emporia, Kansas System Docket No. 50-397, WNP-2, Based on our review of the proposed and Washburn University School of Law mod $ cations, the staff agrees with the Library. Topeka Kansas.

Richland, Washington licensee e determination. Accordingly, Dates ofamendment requests: the Commission proposes to determine Mississippi Power & Light Company, September 27, and November 6,1985, that the proposed changes to the WNP-2 Middle South Energy,Inc., South and September 17.1988. Technical Specifications involve no Mississippi Electric Power Association, Description ofamendmentiequest' significant hazards considerations. Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear

'Ihis proposed amendment,if approved. LocalPublic Document Room Station, Unit 1. Claiborne County, will change the Administrative Controls locotion: Richland Public Library, Swift Mississippi section of the WNP-2 Technical and Northgate Streets, Richland, Speci5 cations.The proposed Date of amendment reouest: August Washington 9335' 12,1985 as amended September 25,1985 amendment involves administrative Attorneyforlibnsee: Nicholas changes to Specification 6.4.1 and and supplemented October 5 and Reynolds. Esquire. Bishop. Liberman, October 22,1985 and May 30,1986.

organizational charts (L2.2-la and 6.2.2- Cook, Purcell and Reynolds,1200 ,

Ib. Seventeenth Street, NW., V2ashirigton, Briefdescription of amendment Technical Specification 6.4.1, as DC 20036 request:The proposed amendment presently written, requires that the would make the following changes in NRCPmfect Director:Elinor G. the Techmcal Specification; add retraining and replacement training Adensam.

program shall be maintained under the specifications in Table 3.3.3-1, direction of the Technical Training PREVIOUSLY PUBLISIIED NOTICES ** Emergency Core Cooling System Manager.ne Supply System proposes OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE (ECCS) Actuatian Instrumentation" and modification to reflect that these OF AMENDMENTS TO OPERATING Table 3.3.3-2," Emergency Core Cooling programs shall be maintained under the LICENSES AND PROPOSED NO System Actuation Instrumentation direction of Training Coordinators. SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS Setpoints" to incorporate interlock Additional modifications ara CONSIDEi1ATION DETERMINATION instmmentation which is designed to requested to the aforemention'ed Supply AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING prevent inadvertent overpressurization System organization charts to reflect ne following notices were previously of low design pressure emergency core more accurately the current company published as separate individual cooling systems by the reactor coolant organizational configurations. notices. The notice content was the systems, and make associated changes Basisforproposedno significant same as above.They were published as in Table 3.3.3-3,"ECCS Response hazanis consideration determination individual notices because time did not Times" and Surveillance Requirement The Commission has provided allow the Commission to wait for this bl. 4.5.1 regarding response times of ECCS standards for determining whether a weekly notice.They are repeated here injection systems. Table 4.3.3.1-1, significant hazards consideration exists because the bl. weekly notice lists all "ECCS Actuation Instrumentation (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendments proposed to be issued Surveillance Requirements" amendment to an operating license for a involving no significant hazards Surveillance Requirement 4.4.3.2.2, facility involves no significant hazards consideration. " Reactor Coolant System Operational consideration if operation of the facility For details, see the individual notice Leakage " Table 3.4.3.2-2, " Reactor in accordance with the proposed in the Federal Register on the day and Coolant System lnterface Valves amendment would not (1) involve a page cited. His notice does not extend Pressure Monitors Alarm." and Table significant increase in the probability or the notice period of the original notice. 3.4.3.2-3 " Reactor Coolant System consequences of an accident previously Interface Valves Pressure Interlocks."

evaluated:(2) create the possibility of a Kansas Gas and Electric Company, These proposed changes were requested new or different kind of accident from Kansas City Power and Light Company, in Item 13 of the attachment to the an accident previously evaluated; or (3) Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., licensee's letter dated August 12,1985, involve a significant reduction in a Docket No. 50482. Wolf Creek as amended September 25,1985 and margin of safety. Generating Station, Coffey County, supplemented October 5 and October 22, The licensee has determined that the Kansas 1985 and May 30,1986.The changes requested amendment per 10 CIE 50.92 Date of amendment request: May 31, requestedinitem12 of the August 12, does not:(1) Involve a significant 1985, as supplemented September 15, 1985 letter wese previously noticed and increase in the probability or 1988. issued as Amendment No. 7 to GGNS l

.- y Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices 37523 Unit 1 License No. NPF-29 on November C"R Chapter 1. which are set forth in the Arizona Public Service Company, et al.

8.1985. license amendment. Docket Nos. STN 50-328 and STN 50-This notice supersedes a previous Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 529. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating notice published in the Federal Register Amendment to Facility Operating Station, Units 1 and 2, Maricopa County, on August 28.19G5 (50 FR 349N). The License and Proposed No Significant Arizona previous notice was based on the llazards Consideration Determination licensee's initial application for and Opportunity for Hearing in Date ofApplicationfor Amendments:

amendment dated August 12.1985. July 23.1986, and supplemental letters connection with these actions was Dunng its safety review of proposed published in the Federal Register as dated August 26 and September 26.1986.

changes to Techmcal Specifications for mdicated. No request for a hearing or Brief Description ofAmendments:

the ECCS injection valve interlocks the petition for leave to intervene was filed The amendments revised the Technical rtaff noted the beensee s proposed following this notice. Specifications by changing the setpoints deletion of tests of response times for Unless otherwise indicated, the involved with the Low Reactor Coolant starting the ECCS systems associated Commission has determined that these fun n. s amendments satisfy the criteria for

] tor, t,r d bY with the iniection valves. because the system response with valve interlocks categorical exclusion in accordance safety analyses, so that process noise would vary, depending on the rate cf with to CFR 51.22.Therefore, pursuant can be accommodated without tripping depressurization during a loss of coolant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental the reactor.

accident. The presently specified system impact statement or environmental Date ofIssuance: October 7.1986.

response time (40 seconds) includes 10 assessment need be prepared for these Effective Date: October 7,1986.

seconds for starting an emergency diesel amendments. If the Commission has Amendment Nos.:10 and 5.

generator and 30 seconds for opening prepared an environmental assessment facility Opemting License Nos.:

the injection vahe in the system. In under the special circumstances NPF-41 andNPF-51: Amendments response to staff questions, regarding provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has revised the Technical Specifications.

surveillance tests of injection valve made a determination based on that Date of/nitialNotice in Fedeml opening, the licensee proposed by letter assessment, it is so indicated. Register: September 2.1986 (51 FR dated September 25.1985 to include For further details with respect to the 31179).

surveillance tests of the time for action see (1) the applications for The Commission's related evaluation injection valves to move from the closed amendments. (2) the amendments, and of the amendments is contained in a position to the open position (29 (3) the Commission's related letters. Safety Evaluation dated October 7,1986.

seconds). Surveillance tests of Safety Evaluations and/or No significant hazards consideration emergency diesel generator starting Environmental Assessments as comments were received: No.

times (10 secor.ds) are presently indicated. All of these items are LocalPublic Document Room included in Technical Specification available for public inspection at the Location: Phoenix Public Library, 4 8.1.1.2. This notice is based on the Commission's Public Document Room. Business Science and Technology revised application from that initially 1717 H Street. NW., Washington, D.C., Department.12 East McDowell Road, noticed which results in greater and at the local public document rooms Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

assurance that the ECCS injection for the particular facilities involved. A valves will open within the design time. copy ofitems (2) and (3) may be Arkansas Power and Light Company, Appropriate changes to the initial notice obtained upon request addressed to the Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear regarding ECCS injection valve response U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. One, Unit No.1, Pope County, Arkansas time have been incorporated in this Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Date of application for amendment notice. Director, Division of Licensing.

Date ofpublication ofindividual April 30,1986, as supplemented July 31.

Alabama Power Company, Docket No. 1986.

notice in Federal Register: September 4*

M8,IoSeph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Briefdescriptw, n of amendment:The Unit No.1, flouston County, Alabama amendment provides changes to ANO-1 1986 (51date Erpiration FRo 31740)' findividualnotice: ' P October 6.1986 Date of applicationfor amendment LocalPublic Document Room July 8,1988.

a tw ernal yd gen locatwn:Ifinds lumot College. recombiners to replace the existing Briefdescriptw.n of amendment:The McLendon Library, Raymond, yYg, Mississippi 39154.

amendment deletes the fuel rod weight py, [,"f f,),*,'c ober 7,1986.

limit in Techmcal Specification 5.3.1.

Date ofissuance: September 23.1986. Effective date: October 7,1986, and NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF shall be !mplemented no later than AMENDMENT TO FACILITY Ef t ve dat Se tember 23,1986.

g November 18,1986.

OPERATING LICENSE

• y,,,,jgy gp,,,;,,' Lice,se yo, ypy. Amendment No.:102.

During the period since publication of 2. Amendment revised the Technical facility Opemting License No. DPR-the last bl. weekly notice, the Specifications. 51. Amendment revised the Technical Commission has issued the following Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Specifications.

amendments. The Commission has Register: August 13,1986 (51 FR 28993) Date ofinitialnoticein Federal determined for each of these The Commission's related evaluation of Register: June 4,1986 (51 FR 20367).

amendments that the application the amendment is contained in a Safety Since the initial notice, the licensae complies with the standards and Evaluation dated September 23,1986. No submitted a supplement dated July 31, requirements of the Atomic Energy Act significant hazards consideration 1986, which responded to the of 1954. as amended (the Act), and the comments received: No. Commission's request for additional Commission's rules and regulations.The LocalPublic Document Room information. This information did not Commission has made appropriate location: George S. lfouston Memorial change the orfginal application in any findings as required by the Act and the Ubrary,212 W. Burdeshaw Street, way, and therefore did not warrant Commission's rules and regulations in to Dothan, Alabama 36303. renoticing.

i 37524 Federal Register / Vol. St. No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices ne Commission's related evaluation Facilities Opemting License No. The Commissian's aelated evaluation

! of the amendment is contained in a DPR-26 Amendment revised the of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 7,1966. Technical Specifications. Safety Evaluation dated October 1,1986 No significant hazards consideration Date ofinitialnoticein Federal No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Register: July 16,1986 (51 FR 25768). comments received: No.

LocalPublic Document Room The Commiesion's related evaluation LocalPublic Document Room location:Tomlinson Library, Arkansas of the amendment is contained in a location: York County Library,138 East Tech University.Russellville, Arkansas letter dated October 6,1986. Black Street, Rock lidl, South Carolina 72801. No significant hazards considention 29730.

comments received:N Carolin PoM Ugh @w, LocalPublic Document Room Duke Power Company, et al., Docket

,, g No. 50-413. Catawbs duclear Station, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 # ic Ubr Unit 1. York County, South Carolina 3

1. "j;

, {h te Plains and 2 Brunswick County, North York,10610. Date of application for amendment:

Camlina June 6,1986.

Date ofapplicationforamendment: 100 Duke Power Company, Docket Nos.

Briefdescription of amendment:The May 6,1985 as supplemented February 50-413 and 50-414. Catawba Nucisar amendment updates and changes a 19,1986. Station, Units 1 and 2. York County' license condition to allow extension of Briefdescription of amendment:The S uth Camlina time for the resolution of the amendments change t! e Technical Date of application for amendments: accumulator tank instrumentation issue.

Specifications (TS) by modifying the September 10,1985, as supplemented Dcte ofissuance: October 6,1986.

surveillance requirements in 'IS Table November 27,1985, January 7 and July Effective date: October 6,1986.

4.3.1'-1 for the Turbine Stop Valve- 31,1986. Amendment No.:15.

Closure and Turbine Control Valve Fast Brief description of amendments: The Facility Opemting License No. NPF-Closure, Control Oil Pressure. low amendments lower the Low-IAw 35. Amendment revised the Operating functions of the Reactor Protection Reactor Trip Signal for the steam License.

System.The amendments eliminate the generator level when the reactor is Date ofinitialnotice in Federal 1 need to test these functions when operating above 30% power level. Register: August 13.1986 (51 FR 28996).

thermal power is below 30% of rated Date ofissuance: September 30,1986. He Commission's related evaluation power. Effective date: September 30,1986. of the amendment is contained in a Date ofissuance: October 1,1986. Amendment Nos.t 13 and 5. Safety Evaluation dated October 6,1986.

Effective date: October 1,1966. Facility Opemting Ucense Nos. NPF- No significant hazards consideration Amendment No.:100 and 129. 35 andNPF-52. Amendments revised comments received: No.

Facility Opemting Uwnses Nos. the Technical Specifications. Loca1Public Document Room DPR-71andDPR-82. Amendment Date ofinitialnotice in Federal location: York County Library,138 East revisedthe Technica/ Specifications. Register: August 27,1986 (51 FR 30564). Black Street, Rock lii!!, South Carolina Date ofinitialnotice in Federal %e Commission's related evaluation 29730.

Register: June 19,1985 (50 FR 25484).The of the amendments is contained in a February 19,1986 submittal provided

• Safety Evaluation daud September 30, ,nd additional clarifym, g information and 1986. 70 McG u a 1

therefore did not change the No significant hazards consideration . "' .no fec enburg determination of the initial Federal comments received; No. Y' Resister Notice. LocalPublic Document Room Dates of applicationsfor The Commission's related evaluation location: York County Library,138 East amendments: July 15,1985, March 12, of the amendment is contained in a Black Street, Rock 11ill. South Carolina May 14. and July 14,1986.

Safety Evaluation dated October 1.1966. 29730. Briefdescription of amendments: The No significant hazards consideration amendments change Technical comments received: No. "'r Co '

• Specification Table 3.6-2 related to 33, d 4 LocalPublic Document Room containment isolation valves.

Location Southport, Brunswick County Nuclear Station Uni' 1 and 2. York Date ofissuance: September 29,1986.

Library.109 W. Moore Street, Southport, Qunty.S d Camhna Effective date: September 29.1986.

Narth Carolir.a 28461. Date of application for amendraents: Amendment Nos.: 63 and 44.

July 15,1986, as supplemented July 24, facility Operating Ucense Nos. NPF-Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Docket No. 50-247. Indian Pobt 9andNPF-17. Amendments revised the rie escriptionofamendmenu The Technical Specifications.

Nuclear Westchester Generating County, New Unit Yor No 2'k amendments change the Technical Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Specifications related to application of a Register: August 27,1986 [51 FR 30569 Date of applicationfor amendment positive moderator temperature and 30571).

May 9,1986. coefficient and to reflect the Cycle 2 The Commission's related evaluation Briefdescription ofamendment:The refueling for Unit 1. of the amendments is contained in a amendment revises the Technical Date ofissuance: October 1,1968. Safety Evaluation dated September 29, Specifications to correct two Effective date: October 1,1986. 1986.

typographical errors in Specification Amendment Nos.:14 and 6. No significant hazards consideration 3.10.2 Power Distribution IJmits which Facility Opemting Ucense Nos. NPF- comrnenta received: No.

were issued in Amendment No.110. 35andNPF-52. Amendments revised loca/Public Document Room Date ofissuance: October 6,1986. Ae Technical Specifications. location Atkins Library, University of Effective date:Immediately. Date ofinitialnotice in Federal North Carolina, Cheriotte (UNCC Amendment No.:116. Register: August 27,1986 (51 FR 30567). Station). North Carohna 28223.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices 37525 Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50- GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket Mississippi Power & Ught Company, 369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Middle South Energy,Inc., South Station, Units 1 and 2 Mecklenburg Station, Unit No.1, Dauphin County, Mississippi Electric Power Aesociation.

County, North Caroline Pennsylvania Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear U

Date of application for amendments: Date of applicationfor amendment- y ,'j"';pft 1, Claiborne County, August 19,1985, as supplemented Apnl June 28,1988.

17,19G6. Briefdescripiion of amendment:%e Date of applicationfor amendment Brief description of an'endments: The amendment deletes one smoke detector August 12,1985, as amended September amendments change :he Technical located in the Audliary Building at 25.1985 ar.d as supplemented October 5 Specifications (TS) to revise the limiting elevation 281 feet in the cable gallerf and October 22,1985 and May 30,1986r condition for cperation action area (Fire Zone 4). The minimum March 21,1986, as supplemented May statements to increase the time number of required operable smoke 30,1988, and July 15,1986.

allowance for restoration of boron detectors (i.e., two)in this fire zona Briefdescription of amendment:%e concentration in an accumulator that is remains unchanged. Besides the detector amendment would change Technical out of specification, to eliminate being removed, there are ct'rrently three Specifications to reflect modifications of venfication of boron concentration after other detectors in this fire zone. instrumentation for the low pressure a greater than 1% volume increase from Date ofissuance: October 1.1986. ernergency core cooling systems, the the normal makeup source, and to Effective date: October 1,1986. automatic depressurization system and reflect these changes m the TS Bases. the seismic monitoring system.

Amendment No.12t Date ofissuance: September 30,1986. Date ofinaance: Octobu 8,1986 FacHity Openting Ucensa Na DPR-Effective date: September 30,1986. ,50L Amendment revised the Technicd Effective date: Changes to the Amendment Noa:64 and 45. Technical Specification pages are Specifications.

Facility Opemting License Nos. NPF- *"" "

DandNPT ". Amendments revised the Date ofinitialnotice in Federal modifications necessitating the changee Registen July 30,1986 (51 FR 27284). are completed and the affected systeme Technical Specifications. ,

The Commission's related evaluation are made opersble, but not later than Date ofinitialroticein Federal f the amendment is contained in a Register: August 27,1986 (51 FR 30509). startup following the first refueling The Commission's related evaluation Safety Evaluation dated October 1.198& outage.

No significant hazards consideration Amendment Na 20.

of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Septembe- 30, comments received: Na facility Opemting License Na NPF-1986. LocalPublic DocumeniRme 29. This amendment revised the No significant hazards consideration locati n:Covernment Publication

• Technical Specifications.

comments received: No. Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Date ofinitia/noticein Fedesel LocalPublic Document Room Educa tion Building. Commonwealth and Registen April 23,1988 (51 FR 15402k Walnut Streets. Harrisburg, August 27,1986 (51 FR 30577R location: Atkins Library, University of Pennsylvama 17126. September 4,1988 (51 FR 31740).

North Carolina Charlotte (UNCC Station). North Carolina 28223. Iowa Electric Light and Power Company, The Commission's related evaluation Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold of the amendment is contained in a Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa Safety Evaluation dated October s.195s.

et o. Plaa U No. 2, SL Lucie County, Flande Date fapplicationforamendment: I "

c, ,,"c,;,

Decem er 6,1985.

Date ofopplication of amendment y July 22,1986. BriefDescription af amendment:Das location llinds Junior College, Briefdescription of amendmenc The amendment revises the DAEC Technical McLendon Ilbrary, Raymond.

amendment deleted the reference to the Specifications to incorporate Missin@pi 39154.

maximum enrichment of reload fuelin containment isolation valves for the Technical Specrfication 5.3.1. I P B Jet Pump Sample line in Niagara Mobewk Power Corporatica, Date ofissuance: September 3n,1988. Technical Specification Tables 3.7-2 and Docket No. 5Ek220 Nine MUs Point

• • r 8 1 E' Effective Date: September 30,190a County, New York Amendment Na:15. Date ofissuance: October s.1986.

Facility Operating License Na NPF- Effective date: October 8,1986- Dote ofomendmentrequestlamnary fa Amendment tevised the Technical Amendment Na:138. 3,1986.

Specifications. Facility Opemting License Na DPR- Briefdescriptiotrof amendment The Date ofinitialnotice in Federal 49. Amendment revised the Technical amendment modifies Technical Registen August 27,1986 (51 FR 30501 at Specifications, Specification Table 3s6.14-1 and Notes 30572). Date ofinitialnotice in Federal for Table 3.8.14.-1 toinclude the addition The Commission's related evaluation Register: February 28,1986 (51 FR 6825J of an explanatory phrase to clanfy the of the amendmentis containedin a The Comnuasion's related evaluction intention of the phrase "at all times?

Safety Evaluation dated Sepermber 30, of the amendment is containe ' *n c Date ofissuoncac October 8,1988, 1986. Safety Evaluation dated Octooer 6,198s, Effective date: October 6,1988.

No significant hazards sensideration No significant hazarde consid2 ration Amendment Na:as.

comn.ents received: No. comments receive 4: No. Facility Opemting License Nbt DPR-LocalPublic Document Roonr LocalPublic Document 1oom 61. Amendment revised the Techmtet location: Indian River Junior College location Cedar Rapids Public Library, Specifications.

Library,3209 Virgina Avenue. Ft. Pierce. 500 First Street. S.E. Cedar Rapids, lowa Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Florida. 52401. Reginter: May 7,1986 (51 FR 1em

37526 Feder;l Regi:t:r / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22. 1986 / Notices The Commission's related evaluation Date ofinitialnotice in Federal No significant hazards consideration of the amendment is contained in a Register: July 30,1986 (51 FR 272e8). comments received;No.

Safety Evaluation dated October 6,1986. The Commission's related evaluation LocoIPublic Document Room No significant hazards consideration of the amendment is contained in a location: Chattanooga-liamilton County comments received: No. Safety Evalustion dated September 30, Bicentennial Library,2001 Broad Street.

LocalPublic Document Room 1988. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401.

location: State University College at No significant hazards consideration Oswego Penfield Ubrary-Documents, comments received: No. Virginia Electric and Power Company, et Oswego, New York 13126. al., Docket No. 50-338, North Anna LocalPublic Document Room location-Multnomah County Library, Power Station. Unit No.1. Louisa Pennsylvania Power and Light 801 S. W.10th Avenue. Portland, g ,y y;,g Company, DocLet No. 5%388, Susquehanna Steam Ele::tric Station, Oregon. Date of applicationforamerdment:

July 11,1986.

Unit 2 Luzen.(County, Pennsylvania Power Authority of %e State of New York Docket No.56-286, Indian Point Brief description of amendment: This Dates of applicationfor amendment: amendment reinstates TS 3.4.9.1.C for April 30. june 19, luly 25. September 16. Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New l

York NA-1 which was deleted by l and September 25,1986. administrative error from the NA-1 TS Brief description of amendmen t: This Date of application foramendment: in a previous amendment. TS 3.4 9.1.C amendment revised the Susquehanna April 30,1986. specifies the necessary restrictions on Unit 2 Technical Specifications to Briefdescription ofamendment:The temperature changes during inservice suppo.. the operation of this unit at full amendment revised the Technical hydrostatic and leak testing l rated power during Cycle 2 operation. Specifications to add anticipatory surveillance.

l This amendment revised the Technical reactor trip upon turbine trip to a list of Date ofissuance: September 26,1986.

! Specifications in the following areas: (1) other reactor trips. Effective date: September 26,1986.

Established operating limits for Exxon Date ofissuance: October 6,1986. AmendmentNo.:86.

and the remaining GE fuel, (2) Effective date: October 6.1986. Facility Operating License No. NPF-4:

established new Average Power Range Amendment No.:68. Amendment revised the Technical Monitor (APRM) setpoints, (3) reflected Facilities Operating License No. Specifications, i the replacement of approximately 42 DPR-6f: Amendment revised the percent of the core with ENC 94 fuel, Date ofinitialnotice i9 Federal l Technical Specifications. Register: August 13,1986 (51 FR 29015).

and (4) modified the bases section. Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal ne Commission's related evaluation Date ofissuance: October 3,1186. Register: July 16.1986 (51 FR 25771). of the amendment is contained in a Effective date: Upon startup following The Commission's related evaluation Safety Evaluation dated September 26.

the Unit 2 first refueling outage. of the amendment is contained in a 1986.

Amendment No.: 31. Safety Evaluation dated October 6,1986. No significant hazards consideration Facility Operating License No. NPF- No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

22:Amerdment revised the Techncial comments received: No. LocalPublic Document Room Specifications. LocalPublic Document Room locations: Board of Supervisors Office.

Date ofinitialnoticeit' Federal location: White Plains Public Library, Louisa County Courthouse. Louisa, Register: August 13,1986 (51 FR 29009). 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New Virginia 23093, and the Alderman The Commission's related evaluation York,10610. Library, Manuscripts Department, of the amendment is contained in a University of Virginia. Charlottesville.

Safety Evaluation dated October 3,1986. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Virginia 22901.

No significant hazards consideration Nuclear Plant. Units 1 and 2. Hamilton I

• {" j c

fc um ntRoom location: Osterhout Free Library, County, Tennessee Date of application foramendments:

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND FINAL l Reference Department. 71 South May 25,1984, as supplemented July 11, DLTERMINATION OF NO Franklin Street, Wilkes. Barre. 1986. SIGNIFICANT llAZARDS Pennsylvania 18701. Brief description of amendments: The CONSIDERATION AND amendments delete the requirement to OPPORTUNITY FOR IIEARING Portland General Electric Company, et (EX1 GENT OR EMERGENCY al., Docket No. 50-344. Trojan Nuclear perform the airlock door sealleakage Plant, Columbia County, Oregon test by the pressure decay method for 15 CIRCUMSTANCES) minutes and add a requirement that the During the period since publication of Date of applicationfor amendment: sealleakage be determined by precision the last bi weekly notice, the July 12.1986. flow methods for at least two minutes. Con mission has issued the following Briefdescription of amendment:The Date ofissuance: October 2,1986. amendments.The Commission has )

amendment rewords the Surveillar.ce Effective date. October 2,1986. determined for each of these Requirements and Bases to reflect that ,tmendment Nos.148 and 40. amendments that the application for the the Trojan ultimate heat sink is the Facility Operuting License Nos. DpR- amendment complies with the e'andards Columbia River with the Cooling Tower 77andDPR-79. Amendments revised and requirements of the Atomic Energy basin serving as the backup. the Technica! Specifications. Act of1954, as amended (the Act) and Date ofissuance: September 30,1980 Date ofinitialnotice in Federal the Commission's rules and regulations. l Effective date: September 30,1986. l Register: September 28,1984 (49 FR The Commission has made appropriate Amendment No. 120. 38410). findings as required by the Act and the Facilities Operating License No. NFF- The Commission's related evaluation Commission's rules and regulations in 10 1: Amendment revised the Technical of the amendments is contained in a CFR Chapter I. which are set forth in the

) Specifications. Safety Evaluation dated October 2,1986. license amendment.

i

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wednesd y. October 22. 1986 / Notices 37527 Because of exigent or emergency categorical exclusion in accordance property, financial, or other interest in circumstances associated with the date with to CFR 51.22. Herefore, pursuant the proceeding and (3) ne possible the amendment was needed, there was to lo CFR 51.22(b). no environmental effect of any order which may be not time for the Commission to publish, impact statement or environmental entered in the proceeding on the for public coniment before issuance. ita assessment need be prepared for these petitioner's interest.The petition should usual 30-day Notice of Consideration of amendments. If the Commission has also identify the specific aspect (s) of the issuance of Amendment and Proposed prepared an environmental assessment subject matter of the proceeding as to No Significant Hazards Consideration under the special circumstances which petitioner wishes to interver.e.

Determination and Opportunity for provision in to CFR 51.12(b) and has Any person who has filed a petition for Ifearing. For exigent circumstances the made a detennination based on that leave to intervene or who has been Commission has either issued a Federal assessment. it is so indicated. admitted as a party may amend the Register notice providing opportunity for For further details with respect to the petition without requesting leave of the public comment or has used local media action see (1) the appucation for Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the to provide notice to the public in the amendment. (2) the amendment to first prehearing conference scheduled in area surrounding a licensee's facility of Facihty Operating Ucense, and (3) the the proceeding, but such an amended the licensee's application and of the Commission's related letter. Safety petition must satisfy the specificity Commission's proposed determination Evalt.ation and/or Environmental requirements desenbed above.

of no significant hazards consideration. Assessment, as indicated. All of these Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to The Commission has provic'ed a

. items are available for public inspection the first prehearing conference reasonable opportunity for the public to at the Commission's Public Document scheduled in the proceeding. a petitioner '

comment, using its best efforts to make Room.171711 Street NW., Washington. shall file a supplerr.ent to the petition to available to the public means of DC and at the local public document intervene which must include a list of cor munication for the public to respond room for the particular facility involved. the contentions which are sought to be quickly, and in the case of telephone A copy of items (2) and (3) may be litigated in the matter, and the bases for comments, the comments have been obtained upon request addressed to the each contention set forth with recorded or transenbed as appropriate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. reasonable specificity. Contentions shall and the licensee has been informed of Washington, DC 20555, Attentiom be limited to matters within the scope of the public comments. Director. Division of Ucensirg. the amendment under consideration. A In circumstances where failure to act The Commission is also offering an petitioner who fails to file such a in a timely way would have resulted, for opportunity for a hearing with respect to supplement which satisfies these example,in deratm, g or shutdown,of a the issuance of the amendments. By requirements with respect to at least one nuclear power plant or in prevention of November 21,1986, the licensee may file contention will not be permitted to either resumption of operation or of a request for a hearing with respect to participate as a party.

increase in power output up to the issuance of the amendment to the Those permitted to intervens become plant s licensed power level, the subject facility operating license and parties to the proceeding, subject to any Commission may not have had arr any person whose interest may be limitations in the order granting leave to opportunity to provide for public affected by this proceeding and wh

, intervene. and have the opportunity to comment on its no significant hazards wishes to participate se a party in the determination. In such case, the license proceeding must file a written petition parti,cipate fully in the conduct of the heanng. includ.ng the opportunity to amendment has been issued without for leave to intervene. Requests for a opportunity for comment. If there has hearing and petitions for leave to present evidence and cros& examine been some time for public comrnent but wnnesses.

intervene shall be filed in accordance less than 30 days. the Commission may with the Commission's " Rules of Since the Commission has made e provide an opportunity for public Practice for Domestic Ucensing final determination that the amendment comment. If comments have been Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. If a involves no significant hazards requested, it is so stated. In either event, request for a hearing or petition for consideration.if a hearing is requested, the State has been consulted by leave to intervene is filed by the above it will not stay the effectiveness of the telephone whenever possible. date, the Commission or an Atomic amendment. Any hearing held would-Under its regulations. the Commission Safety and ucensing Board, designated take place while the amendment is in may issue and make an amendment by the Commission or by the Chairman effect.

immediately effective. notwithstanding of the Atomic Safety and Ucansing A request for a hearing or a petition the pendency before it of a request for a Board Panel, willrule on the request for leave to intervene must be filed with hearing from any person. in advance of 9nd/or petition and the Secretary or the the Secretary of the Commission. U.S.

the holding and completion of any designated Atomic Safety and ucensing Nuclear Regulatory Commission, required hearing. where it has Board will issue a notice of hearing or Washington, DC 2Ds55, Attentionr determined that no significant hazards an appropriate order. Docketing and Service Branch, or may consideration is involved. As required by 10 CFR 2.714.a be delivered to the Commission's Public The Commission has applied the petition f'r leave to intervene shall set Document Room,1717 H Street, NW.,

standards of10 CFR 5092 and has made forth with particularity the interest of Washington, DC, by the above date.

a final determination that the the petitioner in the proceeding and how Where petitions are filed during the last amendment involves no significant thatinterest may ba affected by the ten (10) days of the notice period.it is hazards consideration. %e tmis for this results of the proceeding.ne petition requested that the petitionee promptly so determination is contained in the should specifically explain the reasons inform the Commission by a toll-free documents related to this actiers why intervention should be permitted telephone call to Western Union et (800)

Accordingly the amendments have been with particular reference to the 3254000 (in Missouri (600) 342-4700).

issued and made effective as indhated. following factors:(1)The natureof the ne Western Union operator should be Unless otherwise indicated, the petitioner's right ander the Act to be given Detsgram Identificatkm Number Commission has determined that these made a party to the proceeding:(2)The 3737 and the following message amendments satisfy the criteria for nature and extent of the petitioner's addressed to(Project Director #

37528 Feder:1 Regi:t:r / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wsdn sd y, October 22, 1986 / Notices petitioner's name and telephone Loco /Public Document Room Public comments requested as to number; date petition was mailed: plant location: Oconee County Library,501 proposed no significant hazards name: and publication date and page West Southbroad Street. Walhalla, consideration: No.

number of this Federal Register notice. South Carolina 29691. Comments received: No.

A copy of the petition should also be The Commission's related evaluation Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket sent to the Office of the General No. 50-458. River Bend Station, Unit 1 f the amendment and fmal no Counsel-Bethesda. U.S. Nuclear West Feliciana Parish,loulslana significant hazards consideration Regulatory Commission, Washington, determination are contained in a Safety DC 20555, and to the attorney for the Date ofApplication for amendment: Evaluation dated October 6.1986.

licensee. September 17,1986 and supplemented Attorneyforlicensee: Jay Silberg.

Nontimely filings of petitions for leave by letter dated September 19.1986. Esquire. Shaw. Pittman. Potts and to intervene. amended petitions. Briefdescription ofamendment This Trowbridge.1800 M Street NW.,

supplemental petitions and/or requests amendment changed Technical Washington, DC 20036.

for hearing willnot be entertained Specifications Table 3.6.4-1 to permit LocalPublic Dxument Room absent a determination by the Valve IE51*MOVF076 not to be required location: Osterhout Free Library, Commission, the presiding officer or the to be operable through October 4.1986. Reference Department. 71 South Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, that thus not requiring Valve IE51*MOVFD64 Franklin Street. Wilkes. Barre, the petition and/or request should be to be shut and permitting RCIC to be Pennsylvania 18701.

granted based upon a balancing of the operable. Dated at Bethesda. Maryland this 15th day factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)- Date ofIssuance: October 9,1986. of October.1986.

(v) and 2.714(d). Effective Date: September 19,1986. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Duke Power Company, Dockets Nos. 50- Amendment No.:2. George Lear, 269,56-270 aad 56-287,0conee Nuclear Facility Openting License No. NPF- Acting Director. Dnision ofPWR Licensing-Station, Units Noe.1,2 and 3 Oconce 47: Amendment revised the Technical A. office o/ Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

County, South Carolina Specifications. [FR Doc. 86-23718 Filed 10-17-a6; e 45 am]

Date of applicationfor amendments Public comments requested as to m cootv m June 30,1986, as superseded September proposed no significant hazards 2.1986. consideration: No. - - - - -

Brief description of amendments: The Commission'a related evaluation These amendments revise the Station's of the amendment, consultation with the common Technical Specifications (TSs) State of Louisiana, and final no to support the operation of Oconee Unit significant hazards considerations 2 at full rated power during the determination are contained in a Safety upcoming Cycle 9. In the initial Federal Evaluation dated October 9.1986.

Register notice published September 11 Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner.

1986 (51 FR 32383). It was stated that the Jr., Esq., Conner and Wetterhahn.1747 proposed amendments would revise the Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

TSs in four areas (core protection safety Washin@n. DC 20006.

limits, protective system maximum Loco /PubhcDocument Room allowable setpoints, rod position limits Location: Government Documents and power imbalance limits).These Department, louisiana State University, amendments revise only the power Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70603.

imbalance limits. NRC Pmfect Director- Walter R.

Date ofissuance: October 8.1986- Butler

• Effective date: October 8.1988.

Amendments Nos.:151,151 and 148. Pennsylvania Power and Light Facility Opemting Licenses Nos. Company, Docket No. 50-388, DPR-38. DPR-47 and DP3-55. Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. 1 Amendments revised the Technical Unit 2 Luzerne County, Pennsylvania 1 Date of apphcadon for amendment l i rnments '*9uested as to September 12.1986 (PLA-2719 and PLA- l proposed no significant hazards 2720) consideration: Yes, published in the Brief description of amendment: This e al egister on September 11,1986 amendment revises the Susquehanna Unit 2 Technical Specification 3/4.9.11 Comments Received: No.

The Commission's related evaluation to delete the applicability of the of the amendments, finding of exigent provisions of Technical Speufication circumstances, and final determination 3.0.4 for the purposes ci entering of no significant hazards consideration Operational Condition 5 from a defueled are contained in a Safety Evaluation condition during the first refueling dated October 8.1986. outage.

No significant hazards consideration Date ofissuance: October 6.1908.

commenta received: No. Effective date: September 13,1986.

Attorneyforlicensee:1. Michael Amendme:tt No.:29.

McGarry IIL Bishop. Liberman. Cook, facility Opemting License No. NPF-Purcell and Reynolds,120017th Street. 22: Amendment revised the Technical NW., Washington, DC 20036. Specifications.