ML20207Q420
| ML20207Q420 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Farrar D, Kortier W, Mark Miller COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701270301 | |
| Download: ML20207Q420 (21) | |
Text
y 2
y eAm t.
~-
g.
c DISTRIBU110N M
itSEREDM Jan$ary 16, 1987
' W Rdg. w/o enc 1.
C. Vogan w/o enc 1.
L. 01shan w/o encl..
. DOCKET N0(S). 50 4h455
.. ~
y i
-See Attached list'of'addressess
SUBJECT:
N TH EDISON N The following documents conceming our review of the ' subject facility are transmitte'd 'for your infonnation.
ONotice of Receipt of Application, dated r
Draft / Final Environmental Statement, dated O Notice of Availability of
- Draft / Final Environmental Statement, dated O Safety Evaiuation Report, or Supplement No.
-dated Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, dated O Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility' Operating Licens'e or Amendment to Facility Operating License, dated O Bi-Weekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations," dated
[ses page(s)]
~ C Exemption, dated Construction Permit No. CPPR-
, Amendment No.
' dated Facility Operating License No.
_, Amendment No.
dated i
Order Extending Construction Completier. Date, dated Monthly' Operating Report for transmitted by letter dated O Annual / Semi-Annual Report-transmitted by letter dated X 81-Weekly Notice covering period through Decesi
- 30. 1986. Expiration date for i
hearing requests and consents; January 30, 1987.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l_
Enclosures:
As stated 8701270301 870116 cc: See next page PDR ADOCK 05000454 P
PDR 1
1 PDf3 CVogan 1/20/R7
-]
- ^
Mr.. Dennis L. Farrar Byron Station Consnonwealth Edison Company
. Units 1 and 2 cc:
Mr. William Kortier Ms. Diane Chavez Atomic Power Distribution-528 Gregory Street
~ Westinghouse Electric Corporation Rockford, Illinois 61108
-Post Office Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Regional. Administrator, Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael Miller 799 Roosevelt Road
.Isham, Lincoln & Beale Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 One First National Plaza 42nd Floor Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Chicago, Illinois--60603 Ishcm, Lincoln & Beale Suite 1100 Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
1907 Stratford Lane Washington, D. C.
20036 Rockford, Illinois 61107 Douglass Cassel, Esq.
. Dr. Bruce von Zellen 109 N. Dearborn Street Department of Biological Sciences Suite 1300 Northern Illinois University Chicago, Illinois 60602 DeKalb, Illinois, 61107-7 Ms. Pat Morrison i
Mr. Edward R. Crass 5568 Thunderidge Drive Nuclear Safeguards & Licensing Rockford, Illinois 61107 Sargent-A Lundy Engineers -
55 East Monroe Street Ms. Lorraine Creek Chicago, Illinois 60603 Rt. 1, Box 182 Manteno, Illinois 60950 Mr. Julian Hinds U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.. Byron / Resident Inspectors Offices l-4448 German Church Road
-Byron, Illinois 61010 Mr. Michael C. Parker, Chief Division of Engineering L
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, Illinois 62704 l
b i
I
.~.-m
~ - - -
~
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 9 / Wednesday, January '161937 / Notices 154t the t%==laaion's regulations in to CFR results of the g a " ; h petition 50.92, this means that operation of the should speciRcally explain the reasons facility in as J ;.ce with the proposed why intervention should be permitted amendments would not (1) involve a with particular reference to the signincant increase in the probabuity or following factors:(1)De nature of the -,
consequences of an accident previously petitioner's right under the Act to be evaluated; or (2) create tlw possibility of meds a party to theproceeding: (2) the I.
a new or different kind of accident kom nature and extent of the petitioner's any accident previously evaluated; or (3) property. Ra==eint or other interest in involve a signincant reduction in a the proceeding; and (3) the possible margin of safety.ne basis for this effectof any orderwhichmaybe e
proposed determination for each entered in the oroceeding on the amennemaat request is shown below.
petitioner's inta'est.The petition should
%e %mminalan is seeking public also idanufy the specinc aspect (s) of the r
comments on this proposed subject anatter of the proceeding as ter determination. Any comunents received.
which pendoner wiches to intervene.
i within 30 days after the date of Any person who has Sled a petition for l
publicationof thisnoticewillbe leave to latervene or who has been considered in making any Anal admitted as a party may amend the determination. He Commission will not petition without requestias leave of the normally make a final determination Boar ( up to Rften (15) da.ve prior to the unless it receives a request for a Bret prehearing conference scheduled in hearing.
the proceeding, but such an amended NUCLEAR REGULATORY Written comments may be submitted petition must satisfy the spec.!!! city COMMISSION by mailto the Rules and Procedures requirements described above.
Branch Division of Rules and Records.
Not later than fifteen (15) daye prior to
- 86. Weekly Notice; AppEceuono and Office of Administration. U.S. Nuclear the Erst prehearing confetsace schedule Amedmonts to Operatin0 Licensee Regulatory Conunission. Washington
- in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file involving No Significant Neaards DC 20555. Written comments may also a supplement to the petition to latervene Considerations be delivered to Room 4000. Maryland which must include a list of the NationalBankBuildms 7735Old contentians which are sought to be L Background GeorgetownRoad.Bethesda Maryland liugaud b es mater, and se bun for Pursuant to Public Law (Pub. L) 97-from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Copies of 415. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission written comments received may be "ch "N8*""dfore wis f
Contentic shall (the Commission)is publishing this examined at the NRC Public Document
[$ed to tiere ithin the scope of regunar bl. weekly notice. Public Law 97-Room.1717 H Street. NW., Washhston.. the amendment under consideration. A 415 revised section 180 of the Atomic DC. ne filing of requests for hearing -
petitioner who falls to Als such a Energy Act of1954, as amended (the and petitions for leave to intervene is supplement which satisfies these Act), to require the Commission to '
discused below.
mquirements wh runact k atleast m publish notice of any amendments By February 13.1987, the licensee may contendon wm not %nnie issued, or proposed to be issued, under a file a request for a hearing with respect Participate as a party.
new provision of section 180 of the Act.
to issuance of the amendment to the Dae Penniued to intem becane His provision grants the Commission subject facili operating license and parues 2 ee procaeng, subject 2 any the authority to issue and make any person w interest may be hanhaum in se ordagranung lean to immediately effective any amendment affected by this proceeding and who intem, and haw he oppoduinny E to an operating license upon a wishes to participate as a party in the rticipate fully la the conduct of the determination by the Commission that proceeding must file a written petition fearing, including the opportunity to such amendment involves no significant - for leave to intervene. Requests for a hazards consideration, notwithstanding hearing and petitions for leave to present evidence and cross. examine "U""888-the pendency before the Commission of intervene shall be Bled in accordance a request for a hearing from any person.
with the Commission's " Rules of If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final His bl. weekly notice includes all Practice for Domestic Licensing determination on the issue of no amendments issued, or proposed to be Proceedings"in 10 CFR Part L If a issued, since the date of publication of request for e hearing or petition for significant hazards consideration.no the last bl. weekly notice which was leave to intervene is filed by the above final determination will serve to decide published on December 30,1986 (51 FR date, the Commission or an Atomic when the hearing is held.
47072).
Safety and Licensing Board, designated if the final determination is that the the Commission or by the Chairman amendment request involves no b[the Atomic Safety and Licensing significant hasards consideration, the M M COMERAMON ISSUANCE M AMEMM M Board Panel, will rule on the request -
Commission may issue the amendment FACIIIIT OPERATING IJCENSE AND and/or petition and the Secretary or the.
and make it immediately effective.
PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT designated Atomic Safety and Licensing notwithstanding the request for a HAZARDS CONSIDERATION Board willissue a notice of hearing or hearing. Any hearing held would take
. MTEWWADON AM an appropriate order.
place after issuance of the amendment.
MMRWm FOR HEARIM As required by 10 CFR 2.714. a If the final determination is that the The Commission has made a proposed petition for leave to intervene shall set art mdment involves a significant determination that the fellowing forth with particularity the interest of hasede consideration. any hearing held amendment requests involve no the petitioner in the proceeding, and
. woula take place before the issuance of significant hazards consideration. Under how that interest may be effected by the any amendment.
- 1550 Federal Registee / Vol. 52 No. 9 /
dne day, January 14. 1987 / Notices Normally, the Commission will not document room for the particular facility One of the examples (I),was"a issoe the smaadmant until the involved.
purely adm.nir.trative change to expiration of the 30<iay notice period technical specifications: for example, a flowever, should circumstances change Baltimore Gas and ElatriW[,
change to achieve consistency ht Nos. 50417 and Ma
-during the notice period such that failure CEffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 thmghout the technical to act in a timely way would result, for and 2, Calvert County, MD Date of specfications...". nis proposal is one,
f,an u
us I
ai y elon y
e ol o i r son
,a.
lianse amendment before the
- 11) Limiting Conditions for Operation expiration of the 30-day notice period, Description ofomendment request:
p.s) 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.4.1 are applicable provided that its final determination is ne following proposed technical to the same modes, modes 1 through 4.
that the amendment involves no specification (TS) changes complete the sigMficant hazards consideration.%e M8ponse to BG&E applications dated (2) FaHm to comply with 13 4 6 lig final determination will consider all July 31,1986 and November 24,1986. De or 4 61.2.h will prohibit entering mode 4 fr m m de 5 as would noncompliance public and State eumments received proposed TS changes are:1. Move Units with the current TS 4 6.4.1.4 or 4.6.4.1.5.
before action is taken.Should the 1 and 2 TS Surveillance Requirements CommisJion take this action,it will 4.6.4.1.4 and 4 A4.1.5 from TS 3/4.6.4, (3) Determination of noncompliance publish a nouce of issuance and provide " Containment Isolation Valves," to the with TS 4.6.1.2.g or 4.6.1.2.h while in for opportunity for a hearing after
" Containment IAakage" section of TS 3/ modes 1 through 4 would require the issuance. ne Commission expects that 4A1 " Primary Containment," and unit to be shutdown m accordance with the need to ta ke this action will occur renumber them TS Surveillance TS LCO 3.0.3. as would noncximpliance very infrequently.
Requirements 4A11g and 4A1.2.h.
with the current TS 4A4.1.4 or 4A4.1.5.
A request for a hearing or a petition respectively. 2. To the Units 1 and 2 TS (4) The surveillance frequencies and for leave to intervene must be fild with 3/4&4 add Action Statement "e" which requirements are unchanged by this the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
states "Ihe provisions of Specification proposal.
3A4 are not applicable provided that (5) These surveillance requirements Nuclear Regulatory Commission $:
the affected penetration is isolated." 3.
are more closely relatd to the Washington, DC 225, Attentior Docketing and Servhie Branch, or may Modify Units 1 and 2IS Surveillance containment leakage rate requirements be delivered to the Cunmission's Public Raquirement 4A4.1.2 by changing the of LCO 3 3.1.2 than the containment Document Room.1717 H Street, NW.,
required sarveillance period for isolation valve requirements of LCO Washington, DC, by the above date.
demonstrating the operability of each 3.6.1.2 than the containment isolation is lation valve listed in Table 3.6-1 from - valve requirements of LCO 3.6.4.1.
Where petitions are fini durirg the last at least once er 18 months to at least Relocation of these requirements in ILO ten (10) days of 1:.e notica period, it is once per refu ehng interval where a 3.6.1.2 provides greater consistency to requested that the petitict'er promptly so refueling interval shall be defined as 24 the TS containment leakage rate inform the Commission by a toll. free m nths.
requirements by placing them all in the telephone call to Western Union at (800)
Basis forproposedno significant same TS aection.
325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700).
hazards mnsideration determinotm, Based upon the above, the l
The Western Union operator should be Change No. I proposes the removal of Commission proposes to determine that given Datagram Identification Number T S"TV'IU8"C8 '9dM**"I84A4 the relocation of TS 4A4.1 A and 4.6.4.1.5 3737 and the following message 5
ofgn t e"C ntal addressed to (Project Dhector):
nt petitioner's name and telephone leakage" section of TS 3/4A1. In Change No. 2 proposes to add to TS 3/
number; date petition was mailed: plant
- dd 4.6.4 the Action Statement "e" which name; and publication date and page
. req en hI umbered states, "The provisions of Specifications number of this Federal Register notice.
4.6.11g and 4A1.2.h. respectively.
A copy of the petition should also be TS 4&4.1.4 requires the containment 3.0.4 are applicable pro,vided that the sent to the Office of the Ceneral purge isolation valves be demonstrated affected penetration is isolated.,
Counsel Bethesda. U.S. Nuclear operable while in mode 5, unless the last Currently, s unit may operate in mode 1 Regulatory Commission. Washington, surveillance test has been performed with an isolated, inoperable containment isolation valve for an DC 20555, and to the attorney for the within the past 6 months or any time licensee.
after being opened and prior to entering indefinite period of time. If this unit is Nontimely filings of petitions for leave mode 4 by ensuring that the measu ed shutdown, though,it may not be to intervene, amended petitions.
leakage rate when added to that restored to power until the containment supplemental petitions ar.d/or requests determined for all other Type D and C isolation valve is made operable. This for hearing will not be en;ertained penetrations is less than or equal to o.00 proposal would permit startup from mode 5 to modes 4 through I with any of absent a determination by the La.
the containment isolation valves y
Commission, the presiding officer ce the
'IS 4.6.4.1.5 requires that the presiding Atomic Safety and IJcensing containment purge isolation valve seals specified in Table 3.6-1 inoperable as Board, that the petition andlor request be replaced at a frequency such that no long as the affected penetration was should be granted based upon a individual seal remains in service isolated.
balancing of factors specified in to CFR greater than two conseutive fuel reload The NRC staff has reviewed the 2.714(a)(1)(i) through (v) and 2.714(d).
cycles.
licensee's pmposed chenge and For further details with respect to this On March 6,1988, the NRC published justihcatione against the standard,s in 10 action. see the application for guidance in the Faderal Register (51 FR CFR 50.92 and proposes to determme amendment which is available for public 7751) conceming examples of that the amendment would not:
inspection at the Commission's Public amendments that are not likely to (i) Involve a significant increase in the Document Room.1717 H Street. NW.,
involve a significant hazards probability or consequences of an Washington. DC, and at the local public consideration.
accident previausly evaluated.
Federal Registee / Vol. 53. No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 1987 / Notices 1851 Action Statement "e" would permit significant reduction in a margin of (iii) Involve a significant reduction in heatup and startup only when the safety.
a margia of safety...
penetration affected by the inoperable Based upes the above. the NRC sta5' As the only consequence of the containment isolation valve was proposes to determine that the antension of the surveillance interval by isolated.The purpose of the operable requested addition of Action Statement e months is a minimal degredation of the containment isolation valves is to "e" to TS 3/4.6 l involves no significant reliability of b containment isolatica ensure contalnment teolation capability hazards consideration.
function, there is no significant decrease exists to prevent any possible Change No.3 proposes to modify the in b availability or capability of a radiological releases from the Unita1 and 2 TS Surveillance containmost isolation and, therefore, no containment structure.nis capability is Requirement 4.84.1.2 by changing the signibanereduction la a margia of guaranteed for inoperable containment surveillance period from at least once
- saisty, isolation valves by isolating their every is months to at least once mrF -
Basedu the above, the NRC staff affected penetrations. If it is not feasible refueling interval where a refaeling agrees wi[b licems's mluation or practical to isolate the affected interval shall be defined as 24 months. -
and proposes to determine that the penetration, then the unit would not be "Ill 4.864.1.2 demonstrates the operabditY proposed change to TS Surveillance permitted to heatup to mode 4.Hence, of the containment isolation valves Requirement 4.e64.1.2 involves no the containment isolation capabilities specilled in Table 3.64 by verifying significant hazards consideration, would not be appreciably changed as that they stroke to thelt isolation LocalPublicDocumentitoom such, the probability or consequencts of positions upon receipt of their location: Calvert County 1.ibrary, prince previously evaluated accidents would associated isolation actuation signals.
Frederick, Maryland.
not be significantly increased.
We surveillance period of at least once 3 ff,,,,7 fa, fje,,,,,. Jay E. Silberg.
(ii) Create the possibility of a new or every is months matches the current
% SW.Pittmas Pons and different type of accident from any refueling interval The extension in the Trowbridge,2300 N Street. NW
accident previously evaluated...
surveillance interval to 24 months is Washingen. K 20o37.
This proposal would not change any requested to facilitate a 24-month h
Project Director: Ashok C.
system design. Operation is affected operating cycle.
g only in that a penetration whose ne licensee evaluated the proposed isolation would not impact unit heatup change against the standards in 10 CFR t'a====-s Power Company. Docket No.
or startup would be isolated ifits 50,92 and has determined that the 5s.155. Big Rock Point Plant. Charlevoix associated isolation valve was amendment would not:
County, MT inoperable. If the affected penetration -
(1) Involve a significant increase in the h gedmWw was needed to be open anytime during probability or consequences of an g gg,,,
unit heatup or startup, the unit would accident previously evaluated...
not be permitted to heatup to made 4 or This proposal only affects evente D88Cnpimn of anendmenWuse above untd the penetration was isolated requiring the containment isolation De propmod changa to the Technical S ecifications for the Big Rock Point P
or until that affected containment function by extending the time between isolation valve was restored to performances of the containment Plant reflect the planned use of new operability. Currently, operation in isolatica valve operability hybrid control rode. no control rods are modes 1 through 4 is permitted with demonstrations. De BGaF results frans manufactumd by NUCN inoperable mntainment isolation valves previous performances of this lacwpwated. Also, certain proposed for an indefinite period as long as the surveillance indicate that the operability diengse support the use of Cycle 22 affected penetrations are isolated.
and isolation times of the containment Reload 1-2 fuel winch would be installed nis proposal would not create the isolation valves tested would experience during the 1987 refueling outage.
possiblity of a new or different accident negligible degradation over this 6 month Basisforproposedno significant as (1) the containment Isolation function surveillance interval extensica. As a hasards consideration determinadicar -
The - has provided r
change is negligible in that rather than result, the conWamant isolation requiring h containment isolation function would not be significantly standards for determining whether a valve to close within a certain response affected and the probability or significant hazards consideration exists, time following receipt of an actuation consequences of previously evaluated as stated in to CFR 5&92(c).The signal, that valve or penetration would accidents would not be sipificantly licsases has performed an evaluation already be closed; and (2)if a increased by t'.e extension of this aning the criteria given in to CFR penetration which is needed open dunng surveillance interval to 24 months.
50.aa(c) and has applied them to the unit bestup or startup is isolated due to (ii) Create the possibility of a new or proposed Technkal Specification an inoperable containment isolation different type of accident from any changes. In sununary, the evaluation velve, the unit will not be permitted to accident previously evaluated...
presented is as follower heatup or startup.
This proposal would not change nis Techual Specification diasse is (iii) Involve a signficant reduction in a system desip, operation, or operabihty being requested to include the use of margin of safety...
requirements other thaa extending the NUCOM.lacorporated hafnium / hybrid ne only maryn of safety affected by period between performancre of ine designed control blades along with the this proposalis the response time containment isolation valve opreability presently used General Electric all B.C -
required for containment isolation. In determinations.The containment desip in the control of reector power the event containment isolation le isolation function would be unchanged operation during the upcoming heel required an inoperable containment and the decrease in containment cycle.no control blade desips are isolation valve will have its associated isolation reliability would be negligible, essentially the some with the exception Consequently, this m : M extension of materialcomposidon.The exterior penetration already isolated rather than p
requiring a certain response time before in the surveillance intervel would not geometris =C of the two designer it is isolated. nis actually facilitates create the possibility of a new or are the same with regard to dimensions containment isolation, hence. this different type of acddent from any and the desips are mechanically proposal does not involve any.
acadent previously evaksatedr compatable with all of the reactes'-
1552 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 9 / Wednesday January 14. 1987 / Notices systems and components.The stated in the " Big Rock Point Hybrid
. acceptable operation and the region of respective weights of the cortrol blades Control Rod Evaluation", dated October unacceptable operation for-are also essentially equal.
1986 attached to the December 5.1986 combinations of reactor power levels ne proposed changes do not involve submittal. Also, for the fuel.related and axial shape indices.
c significant increase in the probability administrative changes. as stated in the
%e current maximum power level for or consequences of an accident XN-NF-%21 report teferenced above.
any axial shape index per Figure 3.2-2.
previously evaluated because the reactor operation with the proposed is 88 percent. The licensee proposes to.
NUCOM blade is approximately limits assures conformance with to CFR lower the maximum power level for any equivalent in dimenstoris, weight, and 50.46 criteria for maximum claddin8 axial shspe index. per Figure 3.2-2. to 85 reactivity worth to the accepted General temperature, metal. water reaction and percent.nis represents a decrease in Electric design, and the materials are hydrogen release.%e column heading the region of acceptable operation and.
compatible with the boiling water d.vtges are editorialin nature and thus, is more restrictive than what the reactor environment such that the therefor. rto not reduce any margin of current Technical Specifications allow.
hafnium / hybrid design can be modeled safety.
The licensee states that this change is the same as the standard all B.C control The staff has resiswed the licensee's needed to assure that the plant will blade design in use. Therefore, neither no significant hazards c.unsideration operate within safe limits for anticipated the postuslated reactivity insertion determination and agrees witlahe.
core power distributions in future cccidents nor the neutron absorption licensee's analysis.Therefore, the sieff cycles.
characteristics / power distribution proposes to determine that the Basisforproposedno significont control have changed. Also, the application for amendment involves n hozonh consideration determinotion:
proposed Technical Specification significant hazards consideration.
The Commissior. has provided loco /Public Document Room changes to Table 1 and Table 2 column standards for determining whether a location: North Central Michigan hiedings are editorial in nature and.
College.1515 Howard Street. Petoskey, significant hazards consideration exists therefore, do not affect any accident.
as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed The mechanical. thermal / hydraulic, an.1. Michigan 49770.
amendment to an operating license for a nemn c analys's for Big Rock Point Attorneyforhcensee:Judd L Bacon.
facility involves no significant hazards i
Reload 1-2 is the asme r.s that for the qu C
m n Pow' pan,
consideration if operation of the facility g n k,g previously approved Reload 1-1(see in accordance with the proposed Mich 49201 NR iv/ect Director: John A.
amendment would not:(1) Involve a Technical Specification Amendment No.
81 and asso:iated Safety Evaluation Zwolinski-significant increase in the probability or dated November 1.1985). ne Reload I-2 consequences of an accident previously fuel does not contain any fuel Florida Power and Light Company, evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of casemblies significantly different from Docket No. 50-335. St. Lucie Plant. Unit a new or different kind of accident from those previously found acceptabf e to the No.1, St Lucie County, FL any accident previously evaluated; or (3)
NRC staff. Therefore, the above Date of amendment request:
involve a significant reduction in a mentioned fuel changes do not involve a December 1R.1986.
margin of safety.The licensee addressed significant increase in the probability or Description of amendment request:
the above three standards in the consequences of an accidant previously One parameter that la monitored to amendment application. In regard to the svaluated because the limits are derived ensure safe reactor core operation is first standard, the licensee provided the in a manner identical to that described linear heat rate, as measured in following analysis:
in Exxon Nuclear Corporation (ENC) kilowatts per foot.The limitation on operation of the facility in accordance report XN-NF-79-21. revision 1. Bi8 linear heat rate ensures that in the event with the proposed amendment would not Rock Point LOCA Analysis using the of go,,_or. coolant accident the peak involve a significant increase in the ENC WREM N)P-BWR ECCS Evaluation temperature of the fuel cladding will not probability or consequences of an accident Model-MAP 1JfGR Analysic which has exceed 2200*F. The linear heat rate is previously evaluated.
been previously reviewed and accepted determined to be within its limits by The proposed amendment will not result in by the NRC.
continuously monitoring the reactor core any change to the plant's structure, systems.
These changes do not create the power distribution with either the or components: therefore, there is no increase possibility of a new or different kind of excore detector monitoring system or in the probability of any accident previously cccident from any previously evaluated with the incore detector monitoring evaluated. Reduction of the fraction of because, as stated above, the hafnium /
system. When the excore monitoring maximum allowable power level from o.se to hybrid design can be modeled the same system is being utilized, the Technical o.as will ensure operation of the plant within es the standard all B.C previously Specif' cations also require the estabbshed safety limits for all anticipated approved desir;n presently in use. Also.
monituring of the axial shape index and power distr;butions control rod positions and for the fuel related administrative
- reactor power level.The axial shape Power levels in future cycles.
In connection with the second standard, changes. the XN-NF-79-21 report covers index is defined as the power level the licensee states that:
the required spectrum of accident break detected by the lower excore nuclear Use of the modified specification would not locations, sizes and configurations for instrument detectors minus the power create the possibihty of a new or different the Big Rock Point Plant and the column level detected by the upper excore kind of accident from any accident previously heading changes are editorial in nature nuclear instrument detectors divided by cnd therefore, do not create any new or the sum of these power levels.The way
'$"e posed amendment will result in no different accidents.
the axial shape index and reactor power changes to the plant's procedures, structeres.
These changes do not involve a level are monitored in this instance is by componen>s or modes of operation; therefore significant reduction in the margin of use of Technical Specification Figure it does not create the possibility of a new or safety because of the approximate 3.2-2. Figure 3.2-2 represents a plot of different kind of accident from any accident cquality of weight and reactivity worth fraction of maximum allowable power previously analyzed.
between the NUCOM design and the level versus axial shape index.The Regarding the third standard, the licensee cccepted General Electric design as figure further illustrates the region of states that:
...,,....,.... ~
... m....,.
f Fedeeal Reglatee / Vol 52. No. 9 / Wednesday. January 14c199P/' Notices 1553 Use of the modified a fication would not consideration if operation of the facility detected la 9 years of monitoring and involve a signdcant action in a margin of in accordance with the proposed the hold-down ring redesign affort
- safety, amanAmant would not:(1) Involve a appears to be successful.
ne he Imn made
_g significant increase in the probability or Based upon the above discussion, the potential for more restrictive axial shapes is consequences of an accident previously staff proposes to determine that the future cycles.nis change, therefore, does not evalueted; or (2) create the possibility of proposed changet do not involve a reduce the mergin of safety during the current a new or different kind of accident from significant hazards considerstion.
nele of operation and to designed to ensure any accident previously evaluated; or (3)
LocalPublicDocument Room that operetion under the proposed Figure 3.5-Involve a significant reduction in a location: Indian River Junior College 2 in feture cycles will cormaue to meet all margia of safety. De licensee addressed Library. 320s Virginia Avenue. Fort' acceptance criteria. VenL anan that the above three standards in the Pierca. Florkla 33480.
eftnce af ture c eles amaadawat app!h#on. In regard to the Atreineyforlicensee: Harold F. Reis, meets 1 a is part of eed cycle's relend safety analysts.
first standard. the hcenses provided the Esquira. Newman and Holtzinger.1615 L following analysia:
Street. NW., Washington. DC 20036.
no ificant azard n
reti Opwatten of the fiscility in eocordance
- NRCProfect Directon Ashok C.
determination analysis. Based upon this with the proposed amendment would not D adant.
review,it appears that the standards I"'* 'u odiM Florida Power and Light Company, et al.
p b
Docket No. 56-age. St. Lucie Plant. Unit have been met because the proposed previously evaluated.
figure is more restrictive than the ne purpose of the core Barrel blovensee No. 2, St Lucie County, FL current one and will be periodically Technical Specification was to vanly the Date of amendment request reverified as part of each cycle's reload effectiveness of the redesigned core barrel December 12.1988.
m ee n be mnitwing NMMNO"WM c an e to th yi p o
core berfel movement egeinst the beseline.
De amendment would delete existing procedures used to utilize it.
De baseline wee determined, and monitoring dieselgenerator fuel oil sampling Based upon the above discussion, the core barret movement has been performed for requirements and replace them with staff proposes to determine that the -
over nine years of plant operation.no more effective sampling requirements.
proposed changes do not involve a resotte he,e shown that exceuive core barrel his includes rennoving any significant hazards consideration.
movenwnt is not peutble with the mdnigned acx:nmulated water from the engme LocalPublic Document Room core barrel hold < lown ring. Because core ue nks age nke maj pling location: Indian River Junior College barrel movement monitoring has been shown p
Library. 3209 Virginia Avenue. Fort to be no longer necessary, and because core Pi Florida 33450.
barrel movement is not canaidered in the.
the storage tanks in accordance with acddent analyses, operation of St. Lucie Unit ASnt standards before adding the oil Esqu. eneyforlicensee: Har.old F. Reis, 1
I without a requirement for core barrel to the storage tanks and on a periodic ire. Newman and Holtzmger.1615 L movement monitorine will not involve en basis thereafter.
Street. NW., Was,hington. DC 20036.
increase in the probability or aneequeno**
Basisforproposedno significant NRCProject Director: Ashok C.
of an soddeat pressously evalented.
hazards consideration determination:
Thadani.
In connecess with the second standard.
M - W h W ded
'N Florida Fmt and IJght Compeay.
acikity in accordamm standards for detenining whether a O
Docket No. 50-335, St. Lucie Plant. Unit with the proposed amendment would not significant hazards consideration exists 1
No.1, St. Lucie Caunty, FL c.eete the possibility of a new or different as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed Date of amendraent request:
kind of accident from any accident previously amendment to an operating license for a December 18.198(t evalcated.
facility involves no significant hazards l
Descripfion of a nendment mquest ne proposed e..-.i..c.; would only consideration if operation of the facility he amendment would delete the deiew the.,- -- nt for cera barmi in accordance with the proposed technical specifications associated with "7
""""'"8' **d "**$ " ' *l"'
amendment would not:(1) Involve a core support barrel excessive movement Nd in the significant increena in the probability or a ysee consequences of an adent Weneh (TS % 4.11).ne specifications were there is no change to the operation of the instituted on a few Combustion plant so that a new or different kind of.
evaluated: or (2) create the possibility of
{
Engineering reactors in the mid-1970's accident is not possible as a result of this a new or different kind of accident from l
when a core support barrel hold-down change.
any accident previons!y evaluated; or (3)
~
ring design problem was found in Regarding the third standard, the IIceneet involve a significant reduction in a states that:
margin of safety.The bcensee addressed another plant of similar design.The operation of the facility in accordance the above three standards in the hold-down ring was subsequently redesigned and the specification was gNg),N,gg,me,7 i,7 n of amndet 8pphcahn. In nged to b first standard, the h,oensee provided the put in place to confirm the adequacy of ufety.
the new design. Core support barrel no Core Barrel Movement Techr.lcal.
following analysier movement has been monitored for about Spanreatics. does not establish any enarstas Operation of the facility in accordanos 9 years to date and no excessies motion of safety. and therefore deletion of the with the proposed amendmeat would not has been found.
requirement fo monitoring core barrel involve a significant increen in the Basis forproposedno significong movement wiB not result in a reduction in a probability or consequences of an accident hazards canideration determination:
marstn of sefety.
previously evaluated, The Commission has provided ne staff has reviewed the licensee'e, De proposed amendment wiB not involve standards far determining whether a no significant hazards considers tion
[,qYM*,"j',P'*D*
p,,
significant hasards considerstaan exists determination analysis. Based upon this evaluated in that the proposed chanse as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed review. it appears thet the standards inv,g,ed repisdag fuel oil tests carrently amendment to an opereting license for a have been met because no excessive required by TaAwal Specdcanone mth facility involves no significant hazarde core support barrel movement has been Teduncal SpeciScatlee Survedlance l
-.=. -
[1554
' Federni Register / Vol. 62. No. 9 / Wednesday. January 14, 1987 / Notices 4
Beguimeh which m mon e5ective in staff notes that the proposed this submittal of appropriate TS for the dehcong
, fuel ou and am requirements are essentially the same control room HVAC system.
reluirennents which have been proposed He licensee has proposed Technical
& the ascend sunderd.
by other licensees in the past and these Spec fication Change Request (TSCR) b heenne make 6,w Use of the medaned specincetion would not have been found to be acceptable.
No.151 to add requirements concerning create the possibility of an new or different Based upon this review,it appears that LCO and surveillance for the control kind of accident from any acc6 dent previously the standards have been met because room HVAC.It has evaluated TSCR 151 evaluated, the pregosed overall requirements are to determine if a significant hasards,
The proposed amenements would replace more effective for ensuring quality fuel consideretion exists.The results of this I
feel ou teste arrently mquired by the oil and similar requirements have evaluation. in terms of the criteria in 10 Technical Specincetions with &fferent teste previously been proposed by other which am mee e5ective for emeuring quality licensees and they were found to be CFR 50.92(c). are given below:
fuel ou.How changes em:
acceptable.
The centrol room envelope consiste of the tesung S*8ed UPon the above discussion the control room panel area, the Shift g,,,,
,,,bdi 888ff P to determine that the Superneor*e office, toilet room. kitc. hen, and deliwry of desel fuel contaminehd with ine or jet fuel (JP 4) by addag a test for changes do not involve a cable spreading rooms. Normal natilation is
- point, significant hasards consideration.
provided by a eyetem utilizing one supply fan (b) De proposed Clear and Bright test le Loco /Public Document Room with steam coils for hating and a thm. stage 1
more sensitive for detecting water and
' Jocation: Indian River Junior College refripretion unit for coolms. The ability to eyeliment than the test which is currently Library.320s Viriginia Avenue. Fort recirculate air le provided. with recirculation i
required.
Pierce. Florida 33450.
varying from 0 to 100 percent. A purge mode (c) no accelerated oxidation etability test Atiomeyforlicensee: Harold F. Reis.
le provided for operetion with 100 percent wikdi predicts the tendency of the fuel to Esquire. Newman and Holtzinger.1615 L outside air to prevent the recirculetion of l
I*'" P"'umleta during morage would b*
Street. NW., Washington. DC 20036.
amoke in the Control Room and to clear the mplaced by a &lfemauset performed am NRCProject Director: Ashok C.
arm of smoke and fumes.
adani.
The system is normally operated to l
he b maintain mom air et 75 desme F. Unde (d) Because proposed tests for aaamlar CPU Nuclear Corporation. Docket No.
s a naal opwauon of h turbiu genmtw fuel mMp=aara wiu ensure its quality.
ES-219. Oyster Cronk Noaclear
~
unit. the system e ole during winter and perienc testing would only be required for Generaung Stados. Ocean County, hij j
the perometere which ens change dwing numrser. Heat to maintain 70 degrees F in storage.Thus, certain test requiremente Date of amendment request thou aren is anticipated to be required only would be deleted.
November 2a.1986 (UCR 151).
during h winter when the turbine generator l
(e) Became of the high doyee of 3M Description ofamendment request is not opwating. Major components of the m
t obtain by the tests on
' fuel pner to
%e proposed amendment would add system are the air conditioning unit and the addison to the storage tanks.
proposed limiting conditions for operation (IEO) two huting coile.ne system does not mismanon of the um limit for complew fuel and surveillance requirements include filters to reduce the intake of specinceuce swung bn14 days m 31 days pertaining to control room habitability radioactivity.
tothe Appendix ATechnical Upon the receipt of a LOCA (lose of
( Since uw gravity. as propal.
S ecifications (TS).%is amendment coolant accident] or high conreinment
.' can detect asetamination by let fuel (let A)
P cad other types of contandmation are would add two new sections numbered radiation signal in h control room, the detected by tute other then viscosity.
3.17 and 4.17. Control Room Heating, operators will switch the control room HVAC viscosity testing is not required if gravity le Ventilating and Air-Conditioning system to the partial recirculation mode of determined using this method.
System to the TS. Section 3.17 states operation. For this mode of operation. the (s) Under the proposed samendmente.
when the control room heating.
control room pressure envelope is held at a taalysis for sulfur any one of three ventilating and air-conditioning (HVAC) minimum of % inch water gauge positive pnmHy accepud would be system is required to be operable, the preneure. and the total measured makeup EU'""L actions to be taken if it is determined to plus infiltration air flow is 1830 cfm.
f
((g,,,, 1
,", M* *g"*d' be inoperable and the basis for the ne radiological analysee (( dated] e/17/as)
(i) De requiruneet to periodically remove requirements. Section 4.17 lists the previously submitted to the staff were beeed ac:umulated water froaa the day tanks would surveillance tests to be made on the on the original design of the control room be extended to include the stronge tanks.
HVAC system, the frequency of these HVAC system.ne intent of the original Regardias the thrid standard, the licensee tests and the basis for the surveillance, system design was to provide a minimum of
+
states that:
Basisforpmposedno significant 450 cfm infiltration for pressurization and air Use of the modined specincetion would not hozonfs consideration determination replacement purposes rether then restnet the involve a significant reduction in a mergin of By a Confirmatory Orde-dated March infiltration to e maximum of 450 cim.The oefety.
14.1963.GPU Nuclear (GPUN) was three airbome Resion pmduct release pathe E6 one encePuon b chanen descrbd required to have NUREG-0737,Iten.
considered where Mein Steam Isoletion involve either adding surveillanu tests or Ill.D.3.4 Control Room Habitability valve Bype.s laakage. Containment leekage fully implemeated at the Oyster Cru ek and Engineered Safety Features laskege.
we excepion
( e
)
involves deleting tests which are not Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS)
Since the NRC steff is presently reviewing meaningful because the parameters tested do before the restart from the Cycle 11 the lodine source term for the design basis not change during storage. nue. the cet refueling (Cycle 11R) cutage.By B LOCA accident, the snelysee were restricted effect of the proposed changes would be to Amendment 105 dated July 15,1906, to whole body and bete skin doses from incresee oefety by establishing surveillance GPUN was granted a postponement of noble gases.
ne calculation were revised to determine requirements which would be more effective full implementation until the Cycle 12R the effect of higher infiltration retes on the for ensuring quality fuel oil outage provided that interim system ne staff has reviewed the licensee's upgrades and accident analyses were 30-day gamme whole-body and bete skin doses to the operators. The results are no significant hasards consideration compeleted.%ese interim items have preHnted below; determination analysis. In addition, the been completed with the finalitem being t'
.7
.. ~
k rederal Register / Vol. 52. No. 9 / Wednesday. January 14,198't / Notices 1555 accident, and therefore does r.ot create the consequences of an accident previously-30 daQ)ose probability of a new or ddferent kind of es aluated.Re RCITS is not relied upon (p
Row rate (cfm) accident.
for reactor trip or initiation of any plant Gamma Beta
- 3. Involve a sigmficant mduction in a safety oystem. Further, its operation is e Nntro Room HVAC does not not credited nor required in any N --
3.05 27.9 mitigate the consequences of any previously accident evaluated in the Final Safety 2000-3.07 28.2 analyzed accident. and therefore does not Analysis Report (FSAR). Operation of involve any reduction in a margin of safety.
the facility in accordance with the proposed change would not affect the Although the infiltration rate had increased The staff has reviewed the licensee's probability or consequences of an by as much as a factor of 4. the doses did not no significant hazards consideration accident previously evaluated.
increase in the same proportion.He reason determination and agrees with the for this is that when the infiltration rate is licensee's evaluation.Therefore, the.
Standard 2-The proposed amendment would not create the increased. the exfiltration from the control staff proposes to determine that the room envelope increased at the same rate, licensee's application does not involve a possibility of a new or different kind of thereby having only a small effect on the significant hazards consideration, accident from any accident previously isotopic concentrations in the control room at LocalPublic Document Room evaluated.The proposed change is any time over the 33 day period. ne revised h
intended solely to enhance the ability oi*
t.T m Rfve.
the operator to diagnose accidents and p stors ho ev a he do a we ess as nt S than the S.R.P. lStandard Review Plan) 6.4 jersey 06753.
transients by providing the operator with additional corroborative limits of 5 rem and 3o rem for gamma and Attorney for licensee: Ernest L Blake, beta doses respectively. Also, the Jr.:Shaw. Pittman. Potts. and information.No change to normal radiological analysis did not rely on the ua*
Trowbridge. 2300 N Street. NW.,
operating pmcedures is required.De of gnggles or protective clothing to meet the Washington. DC 20037.
system is physically connected to the CDC (Generst Design Criterion] 19 beta skin NRCPm/ectDimetarrJohn A.
primary system m such a manner so as not to create new or diffe*ent kinds of dose guidehnes, a Cycle 12 commitment. -
Zwolinski" Therefore, the control room was determined accidents from any accident previously radiologically habitable for 30 days following GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al Docket evaluated. Operation of the facility in Ife a se th t room HVAC system No. 50-2ss. 'I1sroe Mile Island Nuclear accordance with the proposed change has no filters to reduce the radioactivity Station. Unit No.1. Dauphin County. PA would not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accidert following a LOCA the loss of the control room HVAC does not change the analysis for Date of amendment mquesti.
previously evaluated.
meeting the CDC 19 criteria on radiation December 10.1986.
Standard 3-The proposed exposure. De control room operstors have Description of amendment mquest: By amendment would not involve a time to manually close dampers to isolate the Order dated December 10.1982, the significant reduction in a margin of control room from other sources. if needed, so Commission required the licensee to safety.ne purpose of the amendment is that the proposed action does not installinadequate core cooling to enhance accident and transient
' Ivi valu$te$a indication instruments (which included monitoring capability. No safety margins pr s
a a Reactor Coolant Inventory Trending are reduced.Therefore, operation of the new or different kind of accident.
The effects of natural phenomena in the System) at TMI-1.The parameters facility in accordance with the proposed control room are being excluded from the specified in NUREG-0737. Item !!.F.2..
change would not involve a significant issue of Control Room Habitability.These were to be included in the system.The i reduction in a margin of safety.
effects are being addreued in the Systematic system is to be operational prior to the -
The Commission's staff concurs with Evaluation Program (SEPlin the fullowing startup from the SR refueling outrage the licensee's analysis on the three active reviews: Tomado missiles. SEP Topic y.hich is tentatively scheduled for standards as discussed above.
I ed s,id March 1987.The proposed amendment
%erefore, the Cortmission proposes to a
w uldincorporate requimments for determine that the proposed amandment Topic 111-2; and flooding potential and operability and calibration frequencies does not involve significant hazards protective requirements, SEP Topic II-3.B.
Hese reviews are discussed in the starre for the Reactor Coolant Inventory considerations.
Integrated Plant Safety Assessment Report Trending System (RCITS)in the TMI-1 Loco / Public Dn vent Room for Oyster Creek. NUREG-0822 dated January Technical Specifications.
locotion:Covernment Publications 1983.
Basisforproposedno significant Section. State 1.ibrary of Penn nylvania.
Based upon the herem, before discussion, hazonfs considemtion determmation:
Education Buildmg. Commonwealth and we (the licensee] have evaluated that this The Commission has provided Walnut Streets. Harrisburg.
change request myolves no significant standards for determining whether a Pennsyhania 17128.
hazards considerations. tn summary, we have significa.st hazards Consideration exista Attorneyforlicensee Ernest L Blake.
determined that the proposed amendment as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed
- 1. Involve a significant incressa in the amendment to an operating [icense {or a lr Shaw.Ptttman.Potts and wculd not:
g gg probabihty 3r consequences of an accident facility involves no significant hazards previously evaluated; considerations if it meets three Washington. DC 20037.
-ne Control Room HVAC system is not standards as described in 10 CFR 50.92.
NRCProject Director-John F. Stols.
an initiator ce mitigator of an accident The licensee has presented a discussion previously analyzed. and therefore does not of each standard and the Commission's Indiana and Michigan Electric Company, change the probability or the consequences of staffis in basic agreement with the Docket No.56-315. Donald C. Cook any design basis accidents.
licensee's presentation. Each standard is Nuclear Plant. Unit No.1. Berries
- 2. Create the probability of a new or dhdMh County. M1 Standard I-The proposed p
sly a at amendment would not involve a.
Date of amendment request-
-De Control Room HVAC system is not an initiator of a new or different kind of significant increase in the probebility or December 5.1988.
1856 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 0 / Wednesday, January.14.1987 / Notices Description ofamendmentsequest: -
Memorial I4brary. 500 Market Street. St.
designed to function similar to previous fuel.
.%e proposed amendment wondd swvise Joseph.Miciugan 49085.
ms. the existing new and opent fuel storage the Technical Specifications for the -
Attorney forlicensee: Gerald critically analym bent the dangu oburvedais change don not cma the Q'sadrant Power Tilt Ratio to require
' Chamoff. Esquire. Shaw. Pittman. Potts that limits be verified once per hour for and Trowbridge. 2300 N Street. NW.,
j','Y*I'"'""ddI'""'""dg twelve hours or unul verified acceptable Washington. DC 20037.
- 3. Don the proposed onwndment involve a at 95% or greater rated thermal power.
NRC Pmject Detector-B.J.
significant reduction in a meegm of sefety? '
Basisforpwposedno significant Youngblood.
Rapone:N margin of eafety is maintained by adherence to other fuel-related hozonfs considemtion determination:
Indim and Michigan Electric 9ny r
hdn Pd ceHon M s M N The current Technical Specifications Docket Nos. 50413 and 50418. Donald design besee.ne deletion of feel rod weight j
i require verification of the Quadrant
. C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Unit Nos.1 and in du bcimical SpecificaHons Design Power Tilt Ratio once every hour until
- 1. Barrien County, MI Features Section 5.3.1 does not directly eff-et I
verified acce table at 95% or greater any eefety system or the safety limits, and rated therma power. With the unit lArts of amendmentisqueet.
therefore will not reduce the margin of eefety.
(perating at 90% power, for reasons December 22.1988.
unrelated to the Quadrant Power Tilt Description of amendment request:
Based on the above analysis, the Ratio. the currentTechnical He proposed amendment would delete licensee concluded th.it the proposed Specifications as written require from the Design Features Section 5.3.1 of amendments do not involve significant continuous verification.His continuous the Technical Specifications (TS) the bazards considerations.ne staff has verification and the ability to verify the maximum fuel rod weight limit of 2236 reviewed the licensee's significant ratio only above 95% power has been grams uranium for Unit 1 and 1983 hasards consideration determination recognized to be inappropriate. %e Unit grams uranium for Urut 2.ne purpose and agrees with the licensee's analysis.
2 and the current Standard Technical of the change would be to permit the use The Commission has provided Specifications were corrected; the of sesemblies slightly over the weight guidance concerning the application of licensee proposes to similarly correct limit.The proposed amendment would the standards in to CFR 50,92 by the Unit 1 Technical Specificatiorn.
also correct several typographical
. providing certain exa aples (51 FR 7744),
ne Commission's standard for errors-One of these examples (i) involving no determining whether a significant Basisforpmposedno significant significant hazards consideration is a hazard consideration exists is as stated hozords consideintion determination In purely administratise change to in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment accordance with the requirements of to technical specifications. ne proposed to an opersting license for a facility CFR 50.92, the licensee submitted the change to correct several typographical involves no significant hazards following significant hazards errors is directly related to this example.
consideration if operation of the facility determination:
Based on all of these analyses, the staff in accordance with a proposed
- 1. Don the proposed license amand=-r has, therefore, made a proposed cmendment would not (1l involve a involve a significant incmue in the
. determination that the licensee's regaaet significant increase in the probability or probability or consequences of previously does not involve a significant hazards consequences of an accident previously evaluated accidents?
consideration.
cvalued. (2) create the possibility of a Response ne veristion in fuel rod weight Loc.alPublic Document Room new or different kind of accident from that can occur even without a Technical j
0 I'
k cny accident previously evaluated or(3) Specification limit is small based on other
- p"h *[d' involve a significant reduction in a fuel design constraints. e.g, rod diamatar. sep f7 h
margin of safety.The proposed change size. UO4 density and active fuellength. ell loseph, Michigan 49085.
corrects an errorin the a !ication of of which provide morne limit on the vanation Attorneyforhcensee Gerald,
in rod weight.The current safety anal ses are Charnoff. Esquire. Shaw. Pittman, Potts 8 '8
" pt e.
," Quadr not based directly on fuel rod weight. t and Trowbridge 2300 N Street. NW.,
o erTilt Rat o e.
,g rather on design parameters out.h as power Washington, DC 20037~
be venfied but once verified within the sad fuel dimensions. These parameters are NDd".db limits, additional hourly verification either (11 not effected at ett by fuel rod without a teason for re-verification is weight. or (21 only slightly affected. However. Youngblood.
unnecessary.The langucge has also a review of design parameters which may be Public Service Company of Colorado, been corrected to recognize that affected indicated that a change in fuel Docket No.56-287. Fort St.Vrain j
verification can be done at less than 95% weight does not cane other design NalearGeneratingStation Platteville, Parameters to exceed the values esoumed in CO power.
l "Ile proposed amendment corrects the ensrious ufety analyssa.or coun 8cceptance criteria to be exceeded. De Date of amendment request Technical Specification language to be I'Ct' *" " ' 'i8" C8"' *i* "'P'C' '
December 19.1986.
consistent with the intent of verification measured nuclear parameters (power. power Description of amendment request:
of the limits. It does not change an) d,etnbution, nuclear coefficients) i.e ney previously eva'uated accident condition ternain within their "Is limits. Thus. it is This proposed amendment updates an nor does it change plant operation ocncluded that the TS modification does not earlier amendment request made on which would creste the possibility of a involve a significant inaesse in the lune 4.1986 and noticed in the Federal new accident. Since this is a correction probabihty or consequences of a previously Register on August 29,1986 at 51 FR oflanguage to reflect the intent of the evaluated accident.
27288. The proposed amendment Technical Specification, there is no
- 2. Does the proposed license amendment incorporates the requirements for tha reduction in any safety margin.
create the possibility of a new or different I censee's Steam Line Rupture Mnd Iaccident fr m any accident previously Detection / Isolation System (SLRDIS) at On the basis of the above, the staff dI has made a proposed determination that y,,,.gg,,,,,, ion og,,,,,,
the Fort St. Vrain Nucle,ar Generating the application for amendment involves different kind of accident from any Station. Specifically, this proposed no significart hazards consideration.
previously evaluated aw.idenile not amendment adds new limiting LocoIPublic Document Room considered a possibility. All of the fuel conditions for operation and location: Maude Preston Palenske eentained in the fuel rod is similar u and surveillance requirements to assure that 1
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 9 / Wednesday. January 14, 1987 / Notices 1557 the St.RDIS will perfonn its design and Functions Two thmugh Five of system and RBCUs does not result la a function should the reactor require this -
Table 3.M.
mactor building puk psemure or tapmtum protective function. Requirements for Basisforpioposedno significant incmese above that ortginally submined la the enisting Steam pipe Rupture hazards consideration determination:
g,F,"',Ib**
- Detection System will be deleted.
De containment peak pressure -
duisa premurm"the Wpmeglincados Basisforproposedno significant predicted by the accident analysis via wul aim nm be a5scoed.
hosoids consideration determination:
the CONTEMIFT computer code gag n, pas g,dity for as accident or Based upon PSC Safety Analysis Report. demonstrates that the reactor building manfunction of a ddlerent type than any (EE-EQ-0014). Steam 1.ine Rupture coohng unit's (RBCU) contribution to evaluated J in the safety analysis report is not created.
le concluded that the SlJtDIS is capable
- peak pressure controlis not a sipincent Detection / Isolation System (SIJtDIS), it zactor in the short term.De mass and The plant hardware coa 8guration has not of performing its intended function to energy release from the postulated been effected by the change to the ESF detect and isolate major rupture of high design basis accident together with
'*8poner dmas.Demform se mults of 1
energy steam lines of the secondary containment heat sinks are the
'*d r
cooling system without operator dominant factors.De peak pressure g,,,gg, acidem ormMbeden mhm een een intervention. This was fully discussed in predicted by this analysis is less than previsuely andysed has met been latroduced, our previous notice referenced above, the containment design pressure of 57 (3)n. e,sla of safety as densed la the The specific changes made in this pels and provides a considerable margin buis for any Tachased a -neation ie aos r
submittal clarify the actione to be taken over the regulatory guide reduced.
~
by the operator when one or more recommendation that maximum ne previously evaluated accidents or SLRDIS instrument channels becomes containment pressure be 10% (51.3 pelgl malfunctions have not essa changed by the inoperative. It also reduces the time in below the design pressure.
. mvision of ESF mopoase dem thus, &e
- '888 *I'*fMy as dan==8 la Technical which the operator must take action and De maximum containment s"pecincadens resine =--
adds provision for daily checks of the temperature predicted by this analysis Instrument chennels.
was below the equipment qualification The staff has reviewed the licensee's Based on the above evaluation, we temperature, and therefore, the dete mination and finds it acceptable.
find no change to our earlier proposed equipment which required transient heat AMiyy, the Commission proposes determination that operation of Fort St.
transfer analysis will still be bounded to determine that this change does not vrain in accordance with the proposed by the equipment surface temperature involve significant hazards amendment would not:(1) Involve a profiles of Final Safety Analysis Report considerations.
signficiant increase in the probability or (FSAR) Figures 3.11-8,3.11-0,3.11 Loco /Ptsblic Document Room i
consequences of an accident previously The dose levels reported in FSAR location: Fairfield County Library, evaluated: or (2) create the possibility of Table 15.4-16 are bounded and remain Garden and Washington Streets, a new or different kind of accident from well below 10 CFR Part 100 levels.
Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180.
any accident previously evaluated: or (3) Additionally, the operator dose levels in Attorneyforlicensse:Randolph R.
involve a significant reduction in the the control room remain below to CFR Mahan, South Carolina Electric and Gas margin of safety.Therefore, the staff Part 50 Appendix A GDC-19 guidelines. - Company. P.O. Box 764, Columbia, proposes to determine that the proposed The service water system has been South Carolina 29218.
changes do not involve a significant demonstrated by calculation, analysis, NRCProjectDirector: Lester S.
hazards consideration.
and plant surveillance testics to meet Rubenstein.
Loco /Public Document Room design basis accident analyses required location: Greeley Public Library, City times to support safety related functions Virginia Electric a1d Power j
Complex Building. Greele y, Colorado.
of components and interfaciostems.
Decket Nos.5M3B and 3D ase, i
Attorneyforlicensee: Bryant The Commission has provided Aama Fewer Station, Units No.1 and No, O'Donnell, Public Service Company of standards for determining whether a 2 Imuisa County, VA l
Colorado. P.O. Box 840. Denver, significant hazards consideration exists Date of amendment requese April 106 Colorado 80201-4840.
(10 CFR 50.92(cl). A proposed 198L RCProject Director: Herbert N.
amendment to an operating license for a W pmped h,ap,,,g,,,,y,qu,,g y,,,,;pg;,,
ow-facility involves no significant hasards e m uld South Carolina Electric and Gas consideration if operation of the facility differentiate between the requirements l
Company, South Carolina Public Service in a:cordance with the proposed of Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.3.3J Authority, Docket No. 50-3es, Virgl! C, amendment would not (1) involve a for inside and outside containment on SummerNuclearStation Unit 1 significant increase in the probability or fire detectioninstrumentation.
Fairfield County, SC consequences of an accident previously evaluated;(2) create the possibility of a Specifically, the changes would modify the surveillance interval for fire Date of amendment request:
new or different kind of accident from i
1 December 12,1986.
detection instruments in containment to accidents previously evaluated; or (3) every cold shutdown unless performed Description of amendment requese involve a significant reduction in margin within the previous six months. Also.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company of safety The licensee has determined requests a revision to Table 3.3-6,
,that the requested amendment does not the proposed changes would replace the l-
" Engineered Safety Features Response involve significant hazard one hour fire watch requirements for c ntainment Gre z nu w ch have Times." of Technical Specification 3/
cons derations for the following reasons:
i 4.3.2 " Engineered Safety Feature inoperable fire detection
' Actuation System Instrumentation " and (t) The probability of occurrence or the Instrumentation with an inspection once its associated Basis. Due to the
- "'*9"*"*" "I '" *CCid"i "' "*lIu"'ti**
every eight hours or hourly monitoring i
possibility of conflicting interpretations -
lnlhe Po a t of containment air temperature. Dese ua
.nalys te r t
this change clarifies the Service Water increased.
changes are consistent with the System and Reactor Building Cooling The change in Engineered Safety Features requirements for fire detection Unit response times for Initiating Signal (ESFI response times for the service water instrumentation specifled in the
i 1558 Fesloral EsWeaur / Vol. 52, IGs. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 1987 / Notices l
Westinghouse Standard Technical detection devices have been reetceed herefore, the proposed changes meet Specifications for Pressurised Water operable.
the criteria specified in 10 CFR 50.92(c)
I Reactors. NUREG-0452. Revialon 4 and Besisforpmposedno significant and, thus, the NRC staff proposes to c ppropriately apply to North Anna Units hozords considemtion determinotioni determine that the proposed changes i
N).1 and No. 2 (NA-1&2).
The Commission has provided involve no significant hazards l
NA-1&2 are designed with standards for determining whether a considerations, and that operation of the subalmospheric containments.De significant hazards consideration exists facility in accordance with the proposed
- corresponding TS seguires that the as stated in to CFR Part 50.92[c). A changes would not involve a significant containments be maintained proposed amendment to an operating hazards eonsideration.
subetmospheric during operations in license for a facility involves no locoIPublic Document Room Modes 1 through 4.Under these signincant hazards consideration if Location: Board of Supervisors Office.
i specified subatmospheric conditions, the operation of the facility in accordance Louisa County Courthouse,Imuisa, containment environment is oxygen.
with the proposed amendment would Virginia 23093 and the Alderman deficient, thereby requiring respiretory not: (1) Involve a significant increase in Library., Manuscripts Department, protection. As a consequence,it is the probability or consequences of an University of Virginia, Charlottesville, I
prudent to limit personnel entry into accident previously evaluated; or (2) -
Attorneyforlicensee: Michael W.
Virginia 22901.
containment during substmospheric create the possibility of a new or modes of operation.
different kind of accident from any Meupin, Esq., Hunton. Williams, Gay he present surveillance requirement accident previously evaluated; or (3) and Gibson, P.O. Box 1535 Richmond.
specifies a functional test of fire involve a significant reduction in a Virginia 23212.
detection instrumentation every six margin of safety.The proposed changes NRCPmfect Directorr Lester S.
months.nis requires a containment will not:
Rubenstein.
entry every six months to perform the (1)lavolve a signincent increase in Virginia Electric and Power ampany, c
test. Testing of fire detection the probability or consequences of an Docket Nos. 5(Mtee and 56-281, Surry irntrumentation inside containment has accident previously evaluated.
Power Station Unit Nos.1 and 2. Surry resulted in extended stay times, Specifically, the proposed changes do.
County, VA subjecting personnel to radiation not increase the likelihood of an gxposure as well as the oxygen. deficient undetected fire in containment.The D
b 1 1965 as em nted environment of the subatmospheric proposed compensatory measures of May 13.1986' containment. Consistent with Standard hourly temperature monitoring or visual Technical Specification 3.3.3.8 on fire inspection of containment every eight
[p#C#f'o#
nge w d rev e t detection instrumentation, ti e licensee hours provide adequate interim fire Technical Specification Section 3.10 to has identified "not accessible during detection capability until the minimum allow the movement of the transfer pl nt operation" as referring to "inside required number of fire detection canal door over the spent fuel poolif containment." Independent of personnel devices have been restomd operable.
necessa[,*rproposedno significant safIty concerns, there are a sufficent Likewise, the proposed change to the g,,j, number of redundant or diverse fire functional testing mterval for fire hozords consideration determination 10 detectors *n the containment fire zones detection instrumentation in CFR 50.92 states that a proposed t) justify the proposed change in containment merely modiGes the test amendment to an operating license for a surveillance interval.
frequency during sustained power facility involves no significant ha::ards l
likewise. the present action statement oPerotions. As mentioned before, there consideration if operation of the facility
(
requires an hourly fire watch patrolin are a sufficient number of redundant or in accordance with the proposed containment to inspect those deverse fire detectors m the amendment would not:(1) Involve a containment fire zones which had containment fire zones to ensure significant increase in the probability or inoperable fire detection detection and justify the proposed consequences of an accident previously instrumentation.This requirement is change in surveillance interval.nese evaluated, or p) create the possibility of impractical, independent of personnel
. changes do not increase the probability a new or different kind of accident from safity concerns, due to the difficulty of or consequences of a previously any accident previously evaluated, or (3) implementing hourly entries into evaluated accident.
involve a significant reduction in a containment. A containment entry / exit (2) Create the possibility of a new or -
margin of safety.
l typically takes 10 minutes due to the different kind of accident from any The proposed change would allow the l
time for depressurization/ pressurization accident previously evaluated. Since the movement of the 3600 lb transfer canal in the air lock.This does not consider.
proposed change does not modify the door over the spent fuel poolif th2 time to don / remove anti.
present design. the possibility of a necessary. By letter dated December 11.
contamination clothing and respirator different type of accident other than that 1985, as supplemented May 13.1986 the cnd travel through access control areas.
previously analyzed has not been licensee discussed the transfer canal Furthermore hourlyinspectionof created.
door drop analysis and the approach containment spaces is not justified given (3) Involve a significant reduction in being used to meet the guidelines of thz relative lack of consumable material the margin of safety.The proposed Standard Review Plan (SRp) 9.1.5, and compared to areas outside of changes still require adequate functional NUREG-0612. " Control of licavy Loads
- cantainment. Monitoring containment testing of fire detection instrumentation at Nuclear Power Plants."
air temperature on an hourly basis or a and compensatory inspections of hourly For heavy loads to be transported visual inspection of containment every temperature monitoring consistent with over the spent fuel pool, the guidance sight hours is an appropriate the Westinghouse Standard Technical provided in Sections 5.1 and 5.1.1 of compensatory action to take in the event Specifications for Pressurized Water NUREG-0612 should be met. During the cf instrument inoperability until the Reactors. NUREG-0452. Revision 4.
Phase I review of the control of heavy minimum required number of fire which appropriately apply to NA-1&2.
loads at Surry, completed on May 18.
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 9 / Wednesday January 14. 1987 / Notices 1559 1984, the Surry loed handling systems consequences of damaging a control rod 23.1962. andJanna 17.1963, the were evaluated against the guidelines of would satisfy Criterion I of NUREG-licensee evaluated e consequence 9 of Section 5.1.1 of NUREG-0612. The load 0612. Section 5.1. and to CFR Part 100, a dropped fuel cask into the spent fuel handling systems met the guidelines and in the May 13.1986, letter the licensee pool. The staff reviewed the licensee's I were foind acceptable. Since no load stated that for the worst case scenario analysis an,lissued a Safety Evaluation handling system procedure changes..
of a dropped transfer canal door, only by Amendment No. 84 to Facility except as noted below, or design one cellin the spent fuel rack would be Operating License No. DPR-32 and changes are necessary for the requested damaged. ne resulting damage would Amendment No. 65 to Facility Operating Technical Specification change, the be limited to local crushing of the top 1.icense No. DPR-37 for the Surry Power Phase I evaluation remains valid.
2.42 inches of the impacted spent fuel Station. Unit Nos.1 and 2. respectively.
However, since the transfer canal door rack cell. Dislodging the impacted cell no transfer canal door drop accident is would be traveling ever spent fuel, the from the rack would entail only a fundamentally no different than such criteria specified in Section 5.1 of vertical movement of the cell. and the previously analyzed accidents.
hUREG-0612 needs to be addressed.
center.line distance between the cells Therefore. based on the above, the staff Only Criteria L 11 and 111 are applicable would remain unchanged in the active concludes that the proposed change for this case: these criteria are:
fuel area.Thus, subcriticality (K,n less would not create the possibility of a new
- 1. Releases of radioactive material than 0.95) would be maintained. no or different kind of accident from any that may result from damage to spent staff concurs with the licensee's accident previously evaluated.
fuel based on alculations involving conclusion; thus. Criterion II of NUREG-Based on the above evaluation foe accidental dropping of a postulated 0612. Section 5.1 is satisfied.
Criteria 11 and til of Secn n 5.1 of heavy load produce doses that are well The most limiting case with respect to. NUREG-0812, the staff concludes that within 10 CFR Part 100 limits of 300 um damage to the spent fuel poolliner is a the proposed change does not involve a thyroid. 25 rem whole body (analyses postulated drop of the transfer canal significant reduction in a margin of should show that doses are equal to or door over a leak test channellocated on safety as suberiticality (K., less than less than % of Part 100 limits):
the pool floor. The licensee's analysis 0.95) would be maintained and the fuel
- 11. Damage to fuel and fuel storage showed that the liner plate would would not be uncovered as there would racks based on calculations involving deform a maximum of 0.132 inches, and not be any leakage of water from the accidental dropping of a postulated that the concrete surrounding the test pool. in the event that the transfer canal heavy load does not result in a channel would absorb the remaining door is dropped in the spent fuel pool.
configuration of the fuel such that K is impact energy.The licensee stated that Based on the above, the staff proposes larger than 0.95 and the stainless steelliner would yield to determine that the proposed change 111. Damage to the reactor vessel or along the edge of the channel but would does not involve a significant hazard the spent fuel pool based on calculations not fracture because of the high ductility ideratI of damage following accidental dropping of the stainless steelThus, there would C*]co/ Pub /[ Document Room l
of a postulated heavy load is limited so be no leakage of water from the pool.
locotion: Swem Library. College of as not to result in waterleakage that
'Ihe staff concurs with the conclusion; William and Mary. Williamsburg, could uncover the fuel (makeup water therefore. Criterion III of NUREG-0612 Virginia 23185.
provided to overcome leakage should be Section 5.1 is satisfied.
from a borated source of adequate Based on above evaluation, the stan A trorneyfor h,censee: Mr. Michael W.
concentration if the water being lost is concludes that movement of the transfer a pin'
,B 5-borated).
canal door, using the spent fuel pool 23213.
The licensee stated in their May 13.
load handling system at Surry Power, 1986 letter that no spent fuel would be Station, meets the guidelines of SRP NRCProject Director Lester S.
damaged if the transfer canal door was Section 9.1.5, and NUREG-0612. As Rubenstein.
dropped onto the spent fuel pool racks.
discussed in Criterion I of NUREG-0812 Yankee Atomic Electric Company.
However. a control rod assembly could the radiological ennsequences for a Docket No.50-029. Yankee Nuclear be damaged, resulting in the release of transfer canal door drop accident are Power Station. Franklin County, MA radioactisity. A licensee evaluation much lower than the consequences of a performed in Section 14.4.1.3 of the fuel handling accident evaluated in the Date of amendment request: October 20.1986, as modified December 18.1988.
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Updated Final Safety Analysia Report.
for a fuel handling accident in the spent Fuel handling accidents and canal door Description of amendment request:
fuel pool, assuming all 204 fuel rods in a drop accidents are basically similar in The amendment request submitted I
fuel assembly fail, shows that the nature.The probability of dropping the proposed Technical Specification (TS) l radiological consequences are below the canal door into the spent fuel poolis changes that would modify the manner guidelines of to CFR Part 100. Since a very small considering that the door will in which some core performance control rod dces not contain fissionable be traveling over the spent fuel pool analysis results such as rod msertion material, the licensee concluded that very infrequently and the operation of limits are included in the TS. A new TS any radioactivity released from a the canal door movement remains Section. 6.17. on Analysis Methods damaged control rod in a transfer canal unchanged. Therefore, the stag would also be added by the proposed door drop accident would be much less concludes that movement of the transfer change.
than that which could be released frorn canal door in the proposed manner will NRC action on the above parts of the a damaged fuel assembly in a fuel not involve a significant increase in the proposed change is deferred pending handling accident, with radiological probability or consequences of an further discussion with the licensee as consequences lower than the fuel accident previously evaluated.
noted in the December 18,1986 letter.
handling accident and well within the As discussed above. the licensee The remaining part of the amendment enteria of to CFR part 100 limits.The evaluated the radiological consequenceer request would modify TS Section 5.3.1 to staff concurs with the licensee's of a fuel handling accident in the
. change the limitation on reload fuel from evaluation that there would be no fuel Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
a nommel enrichment of 3.7 weight assembly damage, and that the In addition, by letters dated September percent U-235 to a maximum nominal
1560 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 9 / Wednesday. January 14. 1937 / Notices cnrichment of 4.0 weight percent U-235.
NOTICE OFISSUANCE OF Briefdesenption of amendments:ne
%is part of the proposed change is the AMENDMENT 10 FACILrIY amendments change the Unit 1 and Unit subject of this notice.
OPERATING IJCENSE 2 Technical Specifications ('IS) to: (1)
Basisforproposedno significant D
the period since publication of~
Reflect a clarification of surveillance requirements of TS 4.6.1.6.2.
hazards considemtion determination:
the last 1. weekly nouce. the
" Containment Structural Integrity."
The Commission has provided Conuni slon has ismd the following concerning containment tendon end st:ndards (10 CFR 50.92(c)) for amadments.De Conunission has anchorages and adjacent concrete determining whether a significant determined for each of these surfaces and a change to 1S 4.6.1.6.3 hazaards consideration exists. A amendments that the application
" Liner Plate": (2) reflect an increase in roposed amendment to an operating Complies with the standards and the reqaired diesel generator test load cense for a facility involves no requiments of the Atank Energy Act specif ed in TS 4.6.1.1.2.c.2. "A.C.
significant hazrds consideration if of1954, as amended [the Act), and the Sources":(3) delete TS 3/4 3/3/8.
cperation of the facility in accordance Commission a rules and regulations.%e " Radioactive Gaseous Effluent with the proposed amendment would Commission has made a propriate Monitoring Instramentation" and not: (1) Involve a significant increase in findings as required by e Act and the incorporate these requirements in is th2 probability or consequences of an Commission's rules and regulations in 10 Tables 3.3-6 and 4.3-3. " Radiation cccident previously evaluated:(2) create CFR Chapter L which are set forth in the Monitoring Instmmentation"; (4) provide th2 possibility of a new or different kind Ucense amadment.
of cccident from any accident previously simplification, additions and Notice of Consideration ofIssuance of clarifications concerning the fire svclusted; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Amendment to Facility Operating protection instrumentation in iS Table Section 5 of the 13 provides License and Proposed No Significant 3.3-11. " Fire Protection Instruments"; (5)
Hazards Consideration Determination revise limiting conditions and discriptive information of features of the plant. The change to the enrichment and Opportunity for Hearing in surveillance requirements for the in TS 5.3.1 is consistent with maximum connection with thm actions was hydrogen analyzers.13 3/4.6.5.
Enrichments that were approved by the published in the Federal Register as
" Combustible Gas Control Hydrogen NRC for reload fuel used in some indicated. No request for a hearing or Analyurs"; and (6) revise limiting previous cycles. Fuel enrichment is not Petition for leave to intervene was filed conditions and surveillance en independent factor by itself in the following this notice.
requirements for the auxiliary feedwster siftty analysis or for plant operations.
Unless otherwise indicated, the system (TS 3/4.7.1.2).
The enrichment is used with other Commission has determined that these Date ofissuance: December 9.1985.
pirimeters such as the number of amendments satisfy the criteria for Effective date: December 9.1985.
ass:mblies to derive measurable core categorical exclusion in accordance Amendment Nos.:109 and 92.
pirimeters important to safe operation, with to CFR 51.22.Therefore. pursuant facility Opemting License Nos. DPR-such as rod worths and peaking factors.
to to CFR 51.22(b). no environmental 53 andDPR-69. Amendments revised i
P11nt operational characteristics. such impact statement or environmental the Technical Specifications.
as rod position, temperatures and assessment need be prepared for these Date ofinitiolnoticein Fedeml protection system trip settings are then amendments. If the Commission has Register: July 31.1985 (50 FR 31061 at established. Allof these parameters are prepared an environmental assessment 31062) and November 6.1965 (50 FR c. trolled by limiting conditions for under the special circumstances 4e210).
operation. action statements and provision in to CFR 51.12(b) and has -
%e Commission's related evaluation surveillance requirements in sect!ons 3 made a determination based on that of the amendments is contained in a and 4 of the TS: these requirements are assessment. it is so indicated.
Safety Evaluation dated December 9.
unchanged by the proposed TS change.
For further details with respect to the 1985.
%e change to the maximum enrichment action see (1) the applications for No significant hazards consideration does not affect the analysis methods or amendments. (2) the amendments, and comments received: No.
plint operation.Therefore, the proposed,(3) the Commission's related letters.
IocalPublic Document Room change does not involve an increase in Safety Evaluations and/or location: Calvert County Library. Prince the probability or consequences of an Environmental Assessments,as Frederick. Maryland.
accident previously evaluated, does not indicated. Allof theseitems are BaWmore Gas & Electdc Company, crerte the possibility of a new or available for public inspection at the Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50418. Calvert different kind of accident from any Commission's Public Document Room.
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Unit Nos.1 previously evaluated, and does not 1717 H Stnet NW Washington.DC.
l involve a significant reduction in a and at tne local public document rooms and 2. Calvert County. MD margin of safety.
for the particular facilit!at involved. A Date of applicationfor amendments:
Based on the above considerations.
copy ofitems (2) and (3) may be July 31.1988, supplemented November 5.
l th: Commission proposes to determine obtained upcn request addressed to the 1986.
thrt the proposed change does not U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Briefdescription of amendments:%e involve a significant hazards Washington.DC 20555. Attention:
amendments modified the Technical consideration.
Director. Division of Licensing.
Specifications (13) by (1) linking the LocalPublic Document Room completion of the reactor coolant pump location Greenfield Commumty College. Baltimore Gas & Electric Companylvert (RCP) flywheelinspection required by l
Docket Nos. 50417 and 50-318. Ca 1 College Drive. Greenfield.
TS surveillance 4.4.10.1.1 to the RCp l
Massachusetts 01301.
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Unit Nos.1 motor overhaul program, and (2) making and 2. Calvert County
- MD l
Attorneyforlicensee:%omas Dignan, the administrative change prescribed by l
Esquire. Ropee and Gray,225 Franklin Date of application for amendments:
General Letter 84-13. " Technical Street. Boston. Massachusetts 02110.
April 28,1985. supplemented September Specificauons for Snubbers." by NRCProject Director George E. Lear.
30,1985.
deleting the list of safety related
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 9 / Wednesday. January 14. 1987 / Notices 1561 hydraulic snubber provided in Table faci!!ty Opemting Ucense Nov. NPF-ne Commission's related evaluation l
3.7-4 from the "Ili.
g andNPF-27. Amendments revived the of the amendment is contained in a Effective date: December 19.1986.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal
, Safety Evaluation dated December 22.
Date of/ssuance: December 19,1986.
operatinglicenses.
1986.
Amendment Nos. 125 and 106.
Register. June 4.1986 (51 FR 20370) ne No significant hazards considerstion Facility Opemting Ucense Nos. DPR-Commission's related evaluation of the comments received: No.
53 andDPR-op. Amendments revised amendment is contained in a Safety LocalPublicDocument Room the Technical Specifications.
Evaluation dated December 23.1986 and locatiom Indian River Junior College Date ofinitialnoticein Federal in an environmental assessment dated Library. 3209 Virginia Avenue. Ft.
Register: November 19.1986 (51 FR December 16,1986.
Pierce. Florida.
No significant hazards consideration Indina whicWsm Elde Compey, 41843 at 41845).
, comments received: No.
Docket Nm 86313.Duald C. Cd
%e Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a LocalPublic DocumentRoom N=Imar Plant, Unit No.1, Berries Safety Evaluation dated December 19 locatiom Atkins Library University of
' gg 1986.
North Caroline. Charlotte (UNCC No significant hazards consideration Station). North Carolina 28223.
- Date ofapplicationsforamendment:
comments received: No.
October 1.1986 and October 31,1986.
I*
Briefdescription of amendment:%e LocalPublic Document Room g
amendment changes the Technical location: Calvert County Ubmry. Prince Unit No.1.Shippingport PA Specifications to include a new Section Frederick Maryland.
Date of applicationforamendment:
4.0.6 which by apectfic reference will Carolina Power & Ught Company, November 7.1965.
allow certain tests normally designated Dockets Nos. 50-325 and 5&324'Unita 1 Briefdescription of amendment:%e as 18 months surveillances to be Bmnswick Steam Electric Plant.
amendment changes the license for delayed until the end of the next and 2. Brunswick County, NC Beaver Valley Unit No.1. extending its refucting outage currently scheduled to Date of applicationforamendments:
expiration date from June 25,2010 to begin during the second quarter of 1987.
April 23.1986.
January 29. 2016.
ness tests include those that would Briefdescription of amendments %e Date ofissuance: December 30,19866 require the plant to be shutdown and Effective date: December 30,1986.
tents that could be done at power but amendments change the Technical Specifications (TS) Table 3.3.4-1 by Amendment No.106.
mth some increase in risk from possible clarifying the conditions under which facility Opemting Ucense No. BPR-reactor trips and plant transients.
the control rod withdrawal block is
- 66. Amendment revised ths license.
Date ofissuance: December 20,1986.
Initiated relative to intermediate range Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Effective date: December 20.1986.
monitor detector position.
Register: January 15,1966 (51 FR 1874).
Amendment No.:100.
Date ofissuance: December 24.198L
%e Commission's telated Facility Opemting Ucense No. DPR-Effective date: December 24.1986.
evaluation of the amendment is
- 58. Amendment revised the Technical Amendments Nos.:102a132.
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated Specifications.
Facility Openting Ucenses Nos.
December 30.1986, and in an Date ofinitialnotices in Federal DPR-7i and DPR-a2. Amendment Environmental Assessment dated Register: November 5,1986 (51 FR 40279) l revised the Technical Specifications.
December 18,1986.
and November 19.1986 (51 FR 41655).
Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal No significant hazards conalderation ne Commission's related evaluation Register: June 18,1986 (51 FR 22232).%e comments received: No.
of the amendment is contained in a Commission's related evaluation of the LocalPt:blic Document Room Safety Evaluation dated December 20.
amendment is contained in a Safety location: B.F. Joces Memorial Library, 1986.
Evaluation dated December 24.1986.
663 Frankhn Avenue. Aliquippa, No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration Pennsylvania 15001.
comments received: No.
comments received: No.
LocalPublic Document Room FIMda Pomd UgM Cepen location:Maude Preston Palenske LocalPublic Document Room Dockd No. m St. Lucie Plat. Ug Mem rial Library. 500 Market Street. St.
location: University of North Carolina at No.1* St. Lucie County, F1.
Wilmington. William Madison Randall joseph. Michigan 49065.
Library. 601 S. College Road.
Date of application of amendmect:
M"la"i pl Power & Light f%=pany.
P Wilmington. North Carolina 28403-3297.
October 17,1986.
Briefdescription of amendment: %e System Energy Resources.Inc South MI**l*83 pi Electric Power Association.
Duke Power Company. Docket Nos.56-amendment permitted a fuel rod to have P
Docket No. 50-416. Grand Gulf Nuclear 369 and 50-370. McGuire Nuclear a nominal active fuellength between Station. Units 1 and 2. Mecklenburg 134.1 and 136.7 inches. In addition.
Station. Unit 1. Claiborne County, MI County, NC andividual fuel assembliea will cor.tain Date of application foramendment Date of applicationforamendments:
fuel rods of the same nominal active fuel September 2 as amended on October 4 December 16.1985, as supplemented length.
- 13. 24 and as supplemented on November 24.1986.
Date ofissuance: December 22,198L November 20,21. and December 2 and 3 Bnfdescription of amendments:no Effective Date: December 22.198L 198L amendments change the expiration Amerd.nent No.:76.
Briefdescription of amendmentThis dates for the Unit 11icense to June 12 Facility Opemting License No. DPR-amendment implements the 2021. and for the Unit 2 license to March et. Amendment revised the Technical authorization to transfer control and 3.2023.
Specifications.
performance of licensed activities from Date ofissuance: December 23,1986.
Date ofinitialnotice in Federal the Mississippi Power and Light Effectwe date: December 23,1986.
Register: November 19,1986 ($1 FR Company (MP&L) to System Energy Amendment Nos.:67 and 4L 41843 at 41853).
Resources.Inc (SERI)(formerly ramed
/
1562 Fedeeal Register / Vol. 52, No. 9 / Wedrienday, January 14, 1987 / Notices Middle South Energy,Inc.).His Documenta Department, Oswego, New Date afinitialnotimin Federal cmendment considers the technical and York 13126.
Register: February 27,1985 (50 FR 8000),
financial aspects asso :iated with this transfer of control and performance of
. Northeast Nuclear Energy Company. et as superseded May 7,1986 (51 FR 18933).
The Commission's related evaluation licensed activities. Ucensees MP&L and al., Dorket No. 5643s, Ml!! stone of the amendment is contained in a SERI will be held to the terms of the Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 2' Town of Waterford,CT Safety Evaluation dated December 16, Cxisting antitrust conditions pending
- 1986, completion of review of the antitrust Date of applicationforamendment:
No significant hazards consideration considerations of the amendment September 26,1986-comments received: No.
tpplication. %e Commission has also, Briefdescription ofamendment:This LocalPublic Document Room pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, duly cuandment modified the Technical location: Multnomah County Ubrary.
cuthorized transfer of control over Specifications by renumbering TS 3/
801 S.W.10th Avenue, Portland, Oregon.
cctivities licensed under license NPF-29 4.9.3 " Decay Time" and incorporating by letter dated December 20,1986.
the following new requirement in the TS: Power Authority of the State of New Date ofissuance: December 20,1986.
(1) A limiting condition for operation York Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Effective date: December 20,1986.
(LCO) and associated surveillance Amendment Na:27.
requirement (SR) addressing the need Oswego Cminty, NY Facility Opemting License Na NPF-for fuel, newty discharged from the Date of application for amendment:
- 29. nis amendment revised the reactor at the end of the fuel cycle, to June 25,1986.
Technit.al Specifications, the have a minimum decay time of 504 hours0.00583 days <br />0.14 hours <br />8.333333e-4 weeks <br />1.91772e-4 months <br /> Briefdescription of amendment:The Environmental Protection Plan and prior to suspending operability of the amendment changes the Technical Ucense.
spent fuel pool cooling system; and (2)
Specifications to reflect a lowering of Date ofinitialnoticein Federal an ICO and SR requiring that the the reactor waterlevel setpoint of the Cesister: November 3,1986 (51 FR reactor remain shutdown in Modes 5 or Main steam Isolation Valves from Level 39927).
6 until discharged fuel has achieved a 2 to level 1.
The Commission's related evaluation decay time of 504 hours0.00583 days <br />0.14 hours <br />8.333333e-4 weeks <br />1.91772e-4 months <br />.
Date ofinuance: December 19,1986.
cf the amendment is contained in a Date ofissuance:DecemberIP,1986.
Effective date: December 19,1986.
Safety Evaluation dated December 20, Effective dete: December 19,1986.
Amendment No.1103.
1986.
Amendment Na:114.
Facility Opemting License Na DPR-No significant hazards consideration Facility Operating License Na DPR-
- 59. Amendment revised the Technical comments received: Comments were
- 65. Amendment revised the Technical Specifications.
cddressed in Safety Evaluation.
Specifications.
Date ofinitialnoticein Federal LocalPublic Document Room Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Register: September 10,1986 (51 FR locotion: Hinds junior College, Register: November 5,1986 (51 FR 40274 32279).
Mc!4ndon Ubrary, Raymond, at 40281).
The Commission's related evaluation Mississippi 39154.
De Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 19.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 1986.
Docket No. 50-220. Nine Mile Point 1986.
No significant hazards consideration Nuclear Station Unit No.1, Oswego No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
County' NY commenta recued: No.
LocalPublic Document Room Date of amendment aquest:
' LocalPublic Document Room location: Penfield Ubrary. State September 15,1986.
location: Waterford Public Ubrary, Rope University College of Oswego, Oswego, Briefdescription of amendment:The Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.
New York, ec cat n et o a 6
'3 and Portland General Electric Company, et South Carolina Electric & Ces Company, Table 6.2-1 to reflect changes required
- al., Docket No. 5M44. Trojan Nuclear South Carolina Public Service Authority, to conform to the Nisclear Regulatory Plant, Columbia County, OR Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nudear tation, Unit No.1 Fairfield i
Commisston's " Policy Statement on Date of applicationforamendment:
II' j
Engineering Expertise on Shift." Generic November 24,1964, as superseded
(
Letter 86-04.
December 27,1965.
Date of application for amendment:
\\
Date ofissuance: December 29,1986.
Briefdescription of amendment:ne
' June 20,1986.
i Effective date: December 29,1986.
amendment modifies Technical Briefdescription of amendment:The Amendment Nat 90.
Specification (TS) Sections 3.4.1.1 and amendment involves edministrative facility Opemtmg License Na DPR-3.4.1.2 with respect to the number of changes and functional definition
- 63. Amendment revised the Technical reactor coolant ! cops required to be in clarifications.
Specifications.
operation in MODE 3 and durirg low Date ofissuance: December 16,1986.
Date ofinitialnotice in Federal power operation. adds a new Effective date: December 16,1986.
l Register: October 22,1966 (51 FR 37517).
surveillance requirement to TS 4.4.1.2 Amendment Na:56.
The Commission's related evaluation regarding control rod drive mechanisms, facility Operting License Na NPF-t2.
i of the amendment is contained in a and incorporates minor editorial Amendment revised the Technical Safety Evaluation dated December 29, changes to the TS.
Specifications.
1986.
Date ofissuance. December 16.1986.
Date ofinitialnotice in Federal No significant hazards consideration Effective date December 16,1986.
Register: August 13.1986 (51 FR 29013).
~
Amendment Na:122.
The Commission's related evaluation comments received: No.
LocalPublic Document Room Facilities Opemting License Na NPF-of the amendment is contained in a location: State University of New York, J: Amendment revised the Technical Safety Evaluation dated December 16.
Penfield bbrary. Reference and Specifications.
1986.
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 9 / Wednesday, January tp 1967 / Notfces 1583 No significant hazards consideration Toledo Edison Company and h ~
Safety Evaluation dated December 30, comments received: No, Cleveland Electric Illuminating 1986, and in an Environmental LocalPublic Document Room Company, Docket No.50 346 Davio.
Assessment dated December 18,1986.
location: Fairfield County Library.
Besse Nuclur Power Station Unit No,1.
No significant hazards consideration Garden and Washington Struts, Ottawa County, OH comments received: No.
Winnsboro. South Carolina 20180, Date of applicationfor amendment:
LocalPublic Document Room South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, August 27,1964 (Item 2 only),
locations: Board of Supervisors Office, South Carolina Public Service Authority, supplemented on August 29,1965.
Louisa County Courthouse Louisa, Docke No, so-ass, Virgil C Summer Brief description of amendment: Thf a Virginia 23093, and the Alderman Nuclost Station Unit No,1, Fairfield amendment modifies TS sections 3.7.1.2 Library, Manuscripts Department.
County, SC and 4.7.1.2 and the associated Bases to University of Virginia, Char:ottesville.
Date of applicationfor amendment clarify the applicability of the Limiting Virginia 22901, Condition for Operation and to add new Virginia Ekctric and Power Company, August 2,1985, as supplemented September 11,1986, surveillance requirements for the Docket Nos,50-280 and !&281 Surry Briefdescription of amendment:The auxiliary feedwater system.
Power Station, Unit Nos, I and 2. Surry amendment revises the qualification Date ofissuance: December 22,1986, County, VA Effective date: December 22,1986, and requirements for individuals performing certain safety reviews required by shall be implemented within 14 days.
Date of application foramendments:
Amendment Na 96.
August 22,1986, as supplemente d Technical Specification Section 6.5.3.1', facility Operating Ucense Na NPF4. December 5, Decembcr to, and Date ofissuance: December 22,1986 Effective date: December 22,19886
,A. mendment revised the Technical December 23,1986.
Amendment Na: 57, opecifications.
Brief description of amendments: The Facility Opemting UcenseNa NPF-Date ofinitialnotice in Federal amendments change the expiration date
- 12. Amendment revised the Technical Register: November 20,1985 (50 FR for the Unit 1 Facihty Operating License, Specificaticns.
47877).The Commission's related DPR-32, from June 25,2008, to May 25.
evaluation of the amendment is 2012, and change the expiration date for Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Register: November 19,1986 (51 FR contained in a Safety Evaluation dated the Unit 2 Facility Operating License, December 22,1986.
DPR-37. from June 25,2008, to January 41889).
ne Commission's related evaluation No significant hazards consideration 29,2013.
of the amendment h m! tined b a comments received. No.
Date ofissuance: December 31,1986.
Safety Evaluation dated December 22 LocalPublic Document Room Effective date: December 31,1986, 1986.
location: University of Toledo Library, Amendment Nos.111 & 111.
No significant hazards consideration Documents Department,2801 Bancroft facility Operating Ucense Nos. DPR-comments received: No.
Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43806.
32andDPR47. Amendments revised LocalPublic Document Room Virginia Electric cnd Power Company, et the Technical Specifications.
location: Fairfield County Library, al., Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Garden and Washin;; ton Streets, North Anna Power Station, Units No.1 Register: October 8,1986 (51 FR 36107).
Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180.
and No. 2 Louisa County, VA The December 5. December 10, and December 23,1986. letters provided South Carohna Electric & Cao Company, Date of applicationfor amendments:
supplementalinformation and did not South Carolina Public Service Authority, August 22,1986, as supplemented change the im,tial proposed action as Docket No. 50-395, Vitzil C Summer December 5, and December 10,1986.
Published in the Federal Register.
Nuclear Station, Unit No.1, Fairfield Brief description of amendments: The The Commiss,on's related evaluation i
County. SC amendments change the license a
Date of applicationfor amendment expiration date for NA-1 from February Ev io ed I cembe 31 August 25,1986, as supplemented 18,2011, to April 1,2018, and change the 1988, and 'n an Environmental October 15,1986.
license expiration date for NA-2 from Assessment dated December 24,1986.
Briefdescriptson of amendment:He February 19,2011, to August 21,2020.
amendment revises the corporate and The amendments are consistent with No significant hazards consideration c mments received:No.
plant organizations.
section 103.c of the Atomic Energy Act Date ofissuance: December 22.1986.
and il 50.56 and 50.57 of the Loca/ Public Room location: Swem Effective date December 22,1986.
Commission's regulations.
Library, College of William and Mary, Amendment Na 58.
Date ofissucnce: December 30,1986.
Williamsburg, Wrgima 23185.
Facility Operating License Na NPF-Effective date: December 30,1988.
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation,
- 12. Amendment revierd the Technical Amendment Nos.:09 & 75-Docket No. 5M05, Kewaunee Nuclear Specifications.
- Facility Operating Ucense Nos. NPF-Power Plant, Kewsunee County, WI Date ofinitialnotice in Federal 4 andNPF-7. Amendmenta resised Date of applicction for amendment:
Register November 19,1"86 (51 FR License.
41869). The Commission's related Date ofinitialnotice in Federal April 29,1986.
evaluation of the amendment is Register: September 24,1986 (51 FR Brief description of amendment: The contained in a Safety Evalu'ation dated 33959).
amendment revises the heatup and December 22,1386, The December 5, and December 10, cooldown Technical Specifications (TS).
No significant hazards considerations 1986, letters provided supplemental In addition, editorial corrections a: '
comments received: No.
Information and did not change the minor administrative changes are made Localrublic Document Room initial datermination published in the to the TS.
location: Fairfield County Library, Federal Register.
Date ofissuance: December 18,1986.
Carden and Washington Streets.
The Commission's related evaluation Effective date: December 18,1986.
Winnsboro. South Carolina 29180.
of the amendments is contained in a Amendment Na:70.
l 1984 Federal Register / Vol. 52 No. e / Wednesday, January 14,11937/ Notices Phcility GparolingLicenseNo.DPR-example,in dorating or shutdown of a theissuance of the amendments.By
- 43. Amendment revises the Technical nuclear power plant or ki prevention of, February 13.1987. the licensee may file Spedfications.
either:===1ena= of operation or of a request fora qwithrespect to Dade ofindselmodsoein Fedesel lacrease in poweroutpet sp to the issuanos of the _
---t to me Resister: June 4.1ee8 (St PR 20377).no plant's licensed powerlevel, the -
subject fecHi operatinglicense and Commission's related evaluation of the Conunission may not have had an any person w interest may be cmendmentis containedin a Safety opportursty to provide for public affected by this, __ '; and who Evaluation dated December 18.1988.
comment on its no signincant hazards wishes to participete as a party in the No significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license w" ; most Als a writsen petition comments received: No.
ameridment has been issued without for leave to intervene. Requests for a Loco 1PublicDocument Room opportunity for comment. lf there has hearing and petitions forleave to been some time for public ea==ent but intervene shall be Aled in accordance location: University of Wisconala ubrary 1Aarning Center. 2420 Nicolet less than 30 days, the P-Immion may with the Co==l==lon's " Rules of Drive. Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301.
provide an opportunity for public Practice for Domestic ' b-M comrnen na==ents han been procesange"in16 Part 2.E a NOTICE OFISSUANCE OF requested. h is so stated. In alen event, aquest fwa hwing w pethion fw AMENDMENTTO FACIUTY the State has been consulted by leave to intervene is filed by the above OPERATING UCENSE AND FINAL teleP one whenever!=h date, the t'a==Imaton or an Atomic h
DE1EltMINATION OF NO Under its regulations, the P=minalava Safety and Ucensing Board, designated -
SIGNIFICANT HA7.ARDS may issue and make an===Imat by the Nn=taalon or by the Chairman CONSIDERATION AND isnme&ataly eHecuve, notwiestanding d te Almic Safety and Ucensing OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING the pendency before it of a request for a Board Panel, will rule on the request (EXIGENT OR EMERGENCY bearing from any person, in advance of and/or petition and the Secretary or the CHtCUMSTANCES) the holding and completion of anY designated Atomic Safety and I le===iaa During the period since publication of required hearing, where it has
. Board walissue a notice of hearms or '
f thz last bi-weekly notice, the determined that no significant hasards an appropriate order.
~
(
Coaunission has issued the following consideretionis involved.
As required by to CFR 2.714.e cmendments.He r== lesion has ne Commission has applied the petition forleave to intervene shall set diterminedforeachof these standards of to CFR 50.92 and has made forth with particularity the interest of emendments that the application for the a finaldetermination that the the petitioner in the prar=adme and how emendment complies with the amendment involves no significant that interest may be affected by the strndards and reqmmments of the hasards consideration.He basis for this Atomic Energy Act of1954,as amended determination is contained in the
"'""* kg* Y,u - ne peuuon stima d,
% y explain g, masons (the Act). and the Co==iamian's rule and documents related to this action.
regulations he Commission has made Accordingly the amendments have been *fg#,"
"I
g,,,
cppropriate findings as required by the issued and made effective as indicated.
foHowing acW1) e nature M &e Act and the Commission's rules and Unless otherwise indicated, the peduoners rigM under &e Ah be regulations in to CFR Chapter I, which Cosiminaian has determined that these made a party to the prooseding:(2) the cre set forth in the license ammad==nt.
amendments satisfy the criteria for nature and extent of the petitioner's Because of exigent or emergency categorical exclus6 in accorderice pmputy,w=( w eeninkmsun circumstances associated with the date with to CFR 51.2L%erefore. pursuant se procesang;and(3)ee possible the amendment was needed, there was to 10 CFR 51.22(b).no environmental not time for the Commiselon to publish, impact statement or environme' Cal effect d any adw wMch may be for public comment before issuance, its assessment need be prepared for these
'"""U"**P"C"E"8"'O' usual 30-day Notice of Cousideration of amendments.If the Commission has petitioner's interest.De petition should lesuance of Amendment and Proposed prepared an environmental assessment alsoidenufy se spec Sc Ws)d de No Significant Hazards Consideration under the specialcircumstances subject matter of the proceeding as to provisionin to CFR 51.12(b) and has which petitioner wishes to intervene.
Dstermination and Opportunity for Hrating. For exigert circumstances, the moda a determination based on that-Any gierson who has Sled a peddon fw Commission has either issued a Federal assessment. it is so indicated.
leave to intervene or who has been Register notice providing opportunity for For further details with respect to the admitted as a party may amend the public comment or has used local media action see (1) the application for petition without requestingleave of the to pmvide notice to the public in the amendment. (2) the amendment to Board up to Afteen (15) days prior to the tres suuumiirq a licensee's facility of Facility Operating Ucense, and (3) the first prehearing conference scheduled in the hcensee's application and of the
. Commission's relatedletter Safety the prarmading, but such an amended Commission's proposed determination Evaluation and/or Envirenmental petition must satisfy the specificity of no significant hazards consideration.
Assessment, as indicated. All of these requirements desenbed above.
The Commission has provided a items are available for public lespedon Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to reasonable opportunity for the public to at the Commission's Public Document the first prehearing conference comment, using its best efforts to make Room.1717 H Street.NW, Washington, scheduled in the proceeding, a petitione.r available to the public means of DC, arid at thelocal public document shall file a supplement to the petition to communication for the public to respond room for the particular facility involved.
inta==== =Neh anet lwtude e list of quickly, and in the case of telephone A copy ofitems (2) and (3) may be the contentions which are sought to be comments, the comments have been obtained upon request addressed to the litigated in the matter, and the bases for recorded or transcribed as appropriate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
each contention set forth with and the licensee has been informed of Washington.DC 3D555. Attention:
reasonable specificity. Contentions shah the public comments.
Director. Division of Licensing.
be limited to matters within the scope of ne -mission is also offering an the amendment under consideration. A in circumstanws where failure to act e
in a timely way would have resulted, for opportunity for a bearing with respect to petitioner who fails to file such a
-_A_
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 1987 / Notices 1585 supplement which satisfies these configuretion which provides assurance The Commission's related evaluation requirements with respect to at least one that adequate cooling will be of the amendment and final No contention will not be permitted to maintained during sump recirculation Significant Hazards Consideration participate as a party.
while satisfying single failure Determination are contained in a Safety Those permitted to intervers become requirements.That configuration Evaluation dated January 5.1987.
parties to the proceeding, subject to any involves repositioning and locking flow Attorney forlicensee: Trey B. Conner.
limitations in the order granting leave to control valve RH-FCV-796 in the Jr Esquire. Conner and Wetterhahn, intervene, and have the opportunity to Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system in 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue NW participate fully in the conduct of the the partially open position and initiating, Washington, DC 20006.
hearing including the opportunity to under prescribed conditions, charging LocalPublic Document /toom present evidence and cross-examine system flow to assure proper Dow location: Pennsvil'.e Public Ubrary.190 witnesses.
Cstribution and pump operability in the South Broadway. Penneville. New Jersey Since the Commission has made a event the specific bre.ak at issue were to 08073 final determination that the amendment occur.
NRCPmjectD/ rector Elinor involvca no significant hazards Dote ofissue: December 24.1986.
Adensam.
consideration,if a hearing is requested.
Effective date: December 24.1986.
Deted at Betheeds. Maryland. this 7th day it will not stay the effectiveness of the Amendment No. 88.
ofJanuary.1987.
amendment. Any hearing held would Facility Opemting License No. DPR-For the Nuclear Reguletory N=Imaica..
take place whi.le the amendment is in of. Amendment revised the Technical
%,, g, %,g,
$ r quest for a hearing or a petition pyfjf, [ments requestedas to f* "' * ##*'
for leave to intervene must be filed with sed ifi h
rds the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
(y"n(dem o
- ~
No.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Commission's related evaluation -
~ * " " " ' * "
washington, DC 20555, Attention:
of the amendment and final no Docketing and Service Branch, or may sigrlficant hazards consideration *
[ Docket Ha. 5H241 be dehvered to the Commission's Public determination are contained in a Safety Document Room,1717 H Street NW.,
Evalaation dated December 24,1986. Mr.
Georgia Power Co. et at; Washington, DC. by the above date.
K. McCarthy of the State of Connecticut Environmental Aseesament and Wh petitions fil d d ng th last was consulted concerning the proposed Flocing of No SignNicant impact
{ ".7,I[e requested that the petitioner proinptly so ber 1 a cember
%e U.S. Nuclear Regulatory inform the Commission by a toll-free 22,1986 After dh i f th Commission (the Commission)is telephone call to Westem Union at (800)
M cCarthy considering issuance of exemptions from 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700).
Qpoedchan have the requirements of paragraph The Western Union operator should be III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J to to CFR b*
0I d given Datagram Identification Number hor. licensee:Cerald Carfield. Part 50 and to CFR 50.34(b)(2)(i) as it 3737 and the fo!!owing message rd, pertains to General Design Criteria number, date petition was mailed; plaint
[mpan'y pt ner a n I hon uns a Hartford.
eth Coporation, Municipal Electric thority f Geo a and the o
loc n.
s ary.124 Broad num e o al R sie no e.
on.
a e cens A copy of the petition should also be Street. Middletown. Connecticut 06457.-
g p
sent to thp Office of the General NRCPmject Directorr Christopher L M h H
's site in Burke County, Counsel-Bethe sd.h. U.S. Nuclear Gnmes.
g Regulatory Commission. Washingto4 Public Service Electric and Gas Enm, me.al Aasessment DC 20555, and to the attomey for the Company. Docket No. 50-354. Hope.
' erating Station, Salem Identification ofproposedoctions ontf[nely filings of petitions for leave Co Y' NJ to intervene, amended petitions, Paragraph Ill.D.2.(b)(ii) of Appendix J supplemen%1 petitions and/or requests Date of application foramendment-to 10 CFR 50 states " Air locks opened for hearing will not be entertained December 5 ar.d 8,1986.
during periods when containment absent a determination by the Briefdescription of amendment %e integrity is not required by the plant's.
Commission, the presiding officer or the amendment revises the Hope Creek Technical Specifications shall be tested Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, that Technical Specifications to include a at the end of such period at not less than the petition and/or request should be Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR)
P "He exemption to this paragraph granted based upon a balancing of the curve for instances when the End-of-would relax the requirement for air lock factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i) Cycle Recirculation Pump Trip (EOC-leakage testing in that such a test would through (v) and 2.714(d).
RFT) is inoperable.
not be necessary before entering mode 4 Date ofissuance: January 5.1987.
each time that an airlock has been Connecticut Yankee Atomic Powe' Effective dote: December 9,1986.
openedin mode 5 or mode 6.This Company, Docket No. 50-213 Haddam Amendment No.: 1.
exemption would apply to situations Neck Plant, Middlesex County, CT Facility Opemting I.icense No. NPF-when the periodic 6-month test Date of applicationforamendment:
57: Amendment revised the Technical requirement of paragraph !!I.D.2(b)(i)
December 17.1988 as supplemented Specifications.
and the 3. day test requirement of December 19.1986.
Public conrments requested as to paragraph Ill.D.2(b)(iii) are current, no Briefdescription of amendment:The pmposedNo Sigmficant Hazards maintenance has been performed on the amendment would establish a plant Consideration: No.
air lock, and the airlock is properly
2508 Federal Regleter / Vol. 52. No. 9 / Wednesday January 14, 1987 / Notices 1
(
sealed.Whenever maintenance has operation and would result in seduced W enemptionis responein to the been perfwmd on an airlock, the operational Sexibility or delay licensing. liosasse's application for exemption 881mirements of pareysph HLD.2(bXill g,,,,,,,, " 'I"'"'"
dated oceober s.1sse.
mast still be net.h staff's technical
&nadfw&przpondocWan b evaluation of this request was published hoe actions involve no use of
' exempoon is med kcam l
in section a.2.0 of the Vogtle Safety resources not previously conaldered in
'e'ifeatwee W & b Hoenm's i
Evaluation Report (NUREG-1137. June the FinalEnvironmentalStatamants requestregarding the existing and lets).%is exemption la responsive to (construction permit and opemung proposed nroyrotection at the plant for '
the licensee's request for exemption license) for the Vogtle Electric this item are the most practical method whichis set outin the VogtleFinal GeneratingPlant. Units 1and 2.
for meeting thelateet of AppendixR 1
Safety Analysis Report.
Agencies andpersons consulted andliteral compliance would not He schedular axemption to to CPR significantly mahanc= the fire protection He NRC staff reviewed the baaaaa's stL34(b)(2)(1) as it pertains to GDC 2. St.
- capbuity.
and at willallow the use of the opent
- imt and no other agencies or mnme e
fuel pool rocks for initial core laading persons we consulted.
p,p ocg
,g under dry coneums befe ploding of Nomag=aAa-* Impact exemption wul provide a degree of fire non dMc edequacy d he Commission has determined not protection auch that there is no increase es valmisned racks.h schedular to prepam en environmentalimpact in the risk of fires at this facility.
cxemption will apply to that time period statement for the proposed exemptions.
Consequently, the probability of fi'res emogh appmval of the selsinic Based upon the environmental has not been increased and the post-fire cdequacy d ee mcks and beim assessment,we conclude that the radiological mf==== will not be greater irradiated fuel is stored in the racks.h propomd actions wG1 not have a than previously detamined nor does the staffs tWeal waluenon of eis significant effect on the quality of the proposed exemption otherwise affect request will be published in Suppimat h==== enviromnent.
radiological plant ofBuents. Herefore.
5 to the V Safety Evaluation Report For ddails wie rupd k b C===Imalan anaAmtes that there are
. coo. see es,e,se,t,o, hw saaduia -issuan-eiammy1.
- duia, no...., m...i#.i His exempuan is mapasin to the exemption dated December 29.100s.
environment =! impacts maan, dated with pdos dated which is available for public inspection this pmposed exemption.
Dem at the===ia lon's public Document With regard to potential r
N needfiartheproposedactions:
Room.1717 H Street.NW. Washington, nonrad alogicalimpacts.the i
DC and at the Burke County Public exemptioninvolves features tod
- g)APraaei,,wh i-n t-ubrary 4th Street.Waynesboro, entirely within the restricted areas as 2M Georgia.
definedin10 CFR part 20,it does not 1
- E'd
[
3,ethada. Maryland.this och day B
ruq overly res and
,g hu o&w tal 7
--id *-3..ed, d::gg
,.th.u.a ;ti.e.i.t.r,c
-f-ee -=i-in -mia-c o, e,som.
e h e m am ms W W aa 3C CPR 80.34(b)(2)(i)is needed to allow B4 Ya==s a
nonradio evirementalimpacts i
the h====e to load fuel and initiate ausdar.m projectDirecsemte so, associated th the propoud plant operation.
mistan ofm uanasugrA.
eX8mpnon.
,u,,,,, _ er; tes am]
Alternatinuseofresouroee:%is *
(FR Doc.87-444 Filed 1 Envimnmentallo; pacts of theproposed octsons action involves no use of resources not previously considered in the Final With regard to potential radiological impacts to b generalpublic.the Northeast Nuclear Energy Co, et al, Environmental Statants fw ee l
exemptions involve featums tiluotone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Millstone Nuclear power Station. Unit ted entirely wf thin the restricted No.2;Envirornental Asessementand No. 2.
area as definedin to CFR Part 20.by pinding of no Significant impact Agencies andpersons consulted:%e C Man myimd Deensee4 mqmt do not afect the potentialfor or ne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory and did not consult o'her agencies or consequences of radiological accidant Commission (the Commission)is P""**
l and do not affect radiologicalplant considering issuance of an exemption cffluents.De exemptions have no effect from the requirements of Appendix R to Finding of No S'gallicant kapact on non-radiological impacts of facilitF to CFR Part 50 to Northeast Nucleer He Commission has determined not operation.nerefore, the Commission Energy Company, et al. (b licenm).
to prepare an envimamentalimpact concludes that there are no signWant environmentalimpacts associated with for the Millstone Nuclear power Station, statement for the proposed exemption.
(
Unit No.2.locatedin New London Based upon the foregoing the proposed exemptions.
County,connardcat.
envimamental a====== mat. we 3
Altarmrtiw so theproppedoctArns.*
Enviremmental.a-'
concluded that the pmposed action will i
Because we have concluded that the Identification ofproposed action: h not have significant effect on the quality environmental effects of the proposed exemption would grant relief fmm b of the human environment.
cctions are negligible, any alternatives requirements of Appendix R. section For further details with respect to this with equal orgreater environmental III.J. as these requirements relate to action, see the opplication for the impacts need not be evaluated.
fixed. 8. hour battery lighting units for exemption dated October a.19es which
%e principal altemative in each case operation of safe shutdown equipment is available for public inspection at the would be to deny the requested (and access / egress associated with this Commission's Public Document Room, exemptions.%is would not reduce equipment).The exemption is only 1717 H Street. NW Washington. DC.
cnvir-e 1 impacts of plant applicable to vitsi electrical Bus 24F.
and at the Waterford Public Library. 40 i
Fedesel Re> / Vol 52. No. t / Wednesday January 14, 1987 / Nodces 1887
.----__m_
Rope Ferry Road. Waterford, Conneeticut 08385.
Deted at BeA==da Maryland, tido alb day cf Jannery iter.
For the Neelear Regulatory r*we Waltw A. Poulsen, Acting Direcser. PWKhedent JNreaantone es Division of!WR
. 2
[FR Doc.87-444 F0ed 1-13.ar; eds aan) satse ones a m
- e I
e
(*
I
-,,,_--,-,-,--,---,---,-----,a---
~,,. -,, -,,, -,,,,,, -. - _,,.,, - -.,. _,. - -, - - - - -, - - -, -, -, - -,
. - - - - - -