ML20236E343

Forwards Fr Notice of Amends Issued or Proposed to Be Issued,Per Public Law 97-415,enacted on 830104,amended Section 189 of Atomic Energy Act of 1954

ML20236E343
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/21/1987
From:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Breaux J SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
References
NUDOCS 8707310324
Download: ML20236E343 (28)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:-- C [ JUL 211987 I IDENTICAL LETTERS SENT TO: (Seeattachedlistofaddressees) The Honorable John 8. Breaux, Chairman f Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510 l i

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Public Law 97-415, enacted on January 4, 1983, amended Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to authorize the Nucles* Regulatory Commission 1 to issue and make immediately effective any amendhent to an operating j license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing. l l In addition, the legislation requires the Commission to periodically (but i not less frequently than once every thirty days) publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, under the new authority above. A copy of the Conmission's Federal Register _ notice is enclosed for your i information. l Sincerely, Original signed by Tho:can E. Murley Thonas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Federal Register I Notice cc: Sen. Alan K. Simpson DISTRIBUTION w o enclosure:

Central File ic gej ' NRC PDR Local PDR PDII-2 Rdg.

I VStello NSIC TMurley Program Support, NRR JSniezek JPartlow l SVarga DMiller I j.3(r Q. g 0GC SECY Mail Facility OCA (3) l; p g .y" O j PWR-A A D* AD:FRR h D NRR OCA 49 u nstein G ias Va a FMiraglia zek plurley Q[ iM ]/h'/87 ]/]/87 /. 87 '/, /87 / 87 M /87 g/87 )',b ~ ) L 8707310324 870721 PDR ORG NRRD

i cc: The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 cc: Rep. Manuel lujan The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead I l l l l l l l l t

4 seus Fodseal W / Vol. St. No. tas / Wednesday July 1. iter / Notless ^ ~ 1 I l.sm NUCLEAR REGULATORY t mannasearm 36esekly Nelles Appeostlene and Amendments as opersung uoenees imeMng No algrennent Hemords ceneideremens L necks===d Pursuant to Public Law (PL)97-415. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is publishing this regular bi-weekly notice.PL 97 415 revised I section 180 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1964, as aman (the Act). to requin I the Commission to publish notice of any l amendments lasued, or proposed to be issued. under a new provision of section 100 of the Act.His provision grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any ' amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Comminion that such amendment involves no significant hasards consideration notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. His bl.wsekly notice includes all notices of amendments lasued, or l proposed to be issued from June 8.1987 through June 19.1987. ne last bl. weekly i' notice was published on June 17.1987 (52 7R 23092). NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ~ ISSUANCE OF AMENDh0NT TO FACIUTY OPERATING UCENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERh0 NATION AND OPPORTUNTIT FOR HEARING he Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under l the Comminalon's regulations in to CFR l 50.92, this means that operation of the i facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluaaed; or (2) create the possibility of j a new or different kind of accident from t I 2

l j Federal Register / Vol. 52. No.126 / Wednesday, July 1,1987 / Notices 24543 I any accident previously evaluated; or (3) petitioner's right under the Act to be to act in a timely way would result, for involve a significant reduction in a made a party to the proceeding:(2) the Iexample,in derating or shutdown of the margin of safety. The basis for this nature and extant of the petitioner's facility, the Commission may issue the proposed determination for each property, financial, or other interest in license amendment before the amendment request is shown below, the proceeding, and (3) the possible expiration of the 30. day notice period. The Commission is. seeking public effect of acy order which may be , provided that its final determination is comments on this proposed entered in the proceeding on the -that the amendment involves no determination. Any comments received petitioner's interest. The petition should a gnificant hazards consideration. ne within 30 days after the date of also identify the specific aspect (s) of the final determination will consider all publie and State comments received publication of this notice will be subject matter of the proceeding as t considered in making any final which petitioner wishes to intervene. before action is taken. Should the I determination.The Commission will not Any person who has filed a petition for normally make a final determination leave to intervene or who has been Commission take this action,it will unless it receives a request for a admitted as a party may amend the publish a notice of issuance and provide hearing. petition without requesting leave of the for opportmity for a hearing after Written comments may be submitted Board up to.'fteen (15) days prior to the issuance. %e Commission expects that by mail to the Rules and Procedures first prehearing conference scheduled in the need to take this action will occur Eranch. Division of Rules and Records, the proceeding, but such an amended very infrequently. Office of Administration.U.S. Nuclear petition must satisfy the specificity A request for a hearing or a petition Regulatory Commission. Washington, requirements described above, for leave to intervene must be filed with DC 20555 and should cite the Not later than fifteen (15) days pdor to the Secretary of the Commission. U.S. publication date and page number of the first prehearing conference Nuclear Regulatory Commisalon, this Federal Register notice. Written scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner Washington DC 20555 Attention: comments may also be delivered to shall file a supplement to the petition to Docketing and Service Branch, or may Room 4000. Maryland National Bank intervene which must include a list of be delivered to the Commission's Pubuc l Building. 7735 Old Georgetown Road, the contentions which are sought to be Document Room.1717 H Street. NW, ) Eethesda. Maryland from 8:15 a.m. to litigated in the matter, and the bases for Washington. DC. by the above date. 1 5.00 p.m. Copies of written comments each contention set forth with Where petitions are filed during the last received may be examined at the NRC reasonable specificity. Contentions shall ten (10) days of the notice period. it is Public Document Room.1717 H Street, be limited to matters within the scope of requested that the petitioner promptly so i NW. Washington. DC. The filing of the amendment under consideration. A requests for hearing and petitions for petitioner who fails to file such a inform the Comnission by a toll-free leave to intervene is discussed below. supplement which satisfies these telephone call to Western Union at (800) By July 31,1987, the licensee may file requirements with respect to at least one 3254000 On Mssouri(800) 3424700). j a request for a hearing with res ct to contention will not be permitted to The Western Union operator should be j issuance of the amendment to t participate as a party. given Datagram Identification Number subject facility operating license and Those permitted to intervene become 3737 and the following message any person whose interest may be parties to the proceeding, subject to any addressed to (Pmfect DirectorJ: affected by this proceeding and who limitations in the order granting leave to petitioner's name and telephone j wishes to participate as a party in the intervene, and have the opportunity to number; date petition was mailed: plant proceeding must file a written petition participate fully in the conduct of the name; and publication date and page for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing, including the opportunity to number of this Federal Register notice, hearing and petitione for leave to present evidence and cross-examme A copy of the petition should also be intervene shall be filed in accordance witnesses. sent to the Office of the General with the Commission's " Rules of if a bearing is requested, the Counsel-Bethesda. U.S. Nuclear Practice for Domestic Ucensing Commission will make a final Regulatory Commission. Washington. Proceedings"in to CFR Part 2. If a determination on the issue of no DC 20555. and to the attorney for the request for a hea ing or petition for significant hazards consideration. The

licensee, leave to intervene is filed by the above final determination will serve to decide Nontimely filings of petitions for leave date, the Commission or an Atomic v, hen the hearing is held.

to intervene, emended petitions Safety and ucensing Board, designated if the final determination is that the supplemental petitions and/or requests by the Commission or by the Chairman acaendment request involves n for hearing will not be entertained of the Atomic Safety and Ucensing significant hazards consideration. the absent a determination by the Board Panel, will rule on the request Commission may issue the amendment Commission, the presiding officer or the and/or petition and the Secretary or the and make it immediately effective, designated Atomic Safety and ucensing notwithstanding the request for a presiding Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board willissue a notice of hearing or hearing. Any hearing held would take Board, that the petition and/or request an appropriate order, place after issuance of the amendment. should be granted based upon a As required by to CFR 2.714, a If the 'inal determination is that the balancing of factors specified in 10 CFR petition for leave to intervene shall set amendment involves a significant 2.714(a)(1)(1)-{v) and 2.714(d). fcrth with particularity the interest of hazards consideration, any hearing held For further details with respect to this the petitioner in the proceeding, and would take place before the issuance of action, see the application for how that interest may be affected by the any amendment. amendment which is available for public results of the proceeding.The petition Normally, the Commission will not inspection at the Commission's Public should specifically explain the reasons issue the amendment until the Document Room.1717 H Street. NW. why intervention should be permitted expiration of the 30 day notice period. Washington DC, and at the local public with particular reference to the However, should circumstances change document room for the particular facility following factors:(1) the nature of the during the notice period such that failure involved.

. _ - - _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.__-_-____ ____ ____ 24544 Fada==1 RsWster / Vol. 52 No.126 / Wednesday, }uly 1. W / Notices ) Arkaanes Power & Light core height (2 to 3 inchee out of142 not required for any of the undervoltage Dodet No. 3D 813. Askanses inchea) are Mansand and sealeeted as and unded.3-. i relays more often One, Unit 1. Pope County, Adansas part of the core reload toport. Because than every eighteen months (during an i changes in the core are already inchaded outage). It is the staffs intention to Da "end e # P' Doce 12, ses in a safety analysis and meet be in arply this amendment,ifit is found accordance with specific criteria, the acceptebis, le Braidwood Station Unit 2. p,,,7j,j,f, y p The proposed amendment would:(1). proposed change wlR not invoke a , Jwhen it recefves its operating license. change the maxunum cose emnclunent =nt inmase in he M W w. Asie fw,", AMign$ cant specification in Technical Specification enmarquences of an accident proweesly Hazards Conardestien Drearrninationi (TS) Section 5.3.1.8 from "..shall not s kd .m thPrMilityofa a h Deer Ac.< dent A..et.d Newor g-===nr er.. -oivosno u hasards and (2) change the active baight valmeSf e me am coh Acew&ng to 10 M which are aheady in in the 50.92(c), a proposed amendment to an the core in 'IS 5.3.1.2 frorn " 144,,inchas" derivation of core parameters which are operating license involves no significant to,. approximate 142 ing. y s cons dYr included b es Techecal Spocau6 ens. brds h if opmWe d e pmpoe c engu & 6e lec%y in accordance wth he ho a on deter on: The inclusion of the maximum mete he pass bility of a new or proposed anwndment would not:(1) enrichment of the fuelis not a direct dMmm W d am b any involw a signmcant incmase in the input to the reactor safety analysis.The accident previous.y evaluated. - probebeity or consequences of an fuel enrichment is used in en indirect (3) Involve a Senificant Aeduction in accident previously evaluated; or (2) a Margin ofSofety: Fuel enricinnent and create the possibility of a new or manner in conjunction with a number of core height are considered the different kind of accident from any P* a m oed al ulations and la 8 accident previously evaluated; or (3) nu a esI " fthe m f CYCI'* denvation of messarable core h nuclear &eign is used in tm to involve a significant redaction in a parameters important to safe operation. margin of safety derive measurmble cose parameters & core paramehrs importam to salmy h Med @ W $"h, a[s ed n uded i t S to Tab 4.31 and 4.5-2, to clarify the c, Conditions for Operation. In addition. the proposed ch will t inv Ive requirements of the Trip Actuating the reloed fuel enrichment is incladed in ce OperanomaWest as IWns te the fuel storage TS and gives the significant reduction in the margin of undervoltage and underfrequency safety maximum enrichment of new feel which Based on the above consideradona, repcitly defines the requirements of proposed amendment more can be stored in the[the core vartes t fuel pool, the rhnrn6aannr2 to deturndne exp & active height slightly from reload to reload. Com that the propeeed e involve no e Wp Aduanns Device Opmdual significant hazards considerations. Test as it pertains to undervoltage and - heights are identified and evaluated as LocalPublic Document h underfrequency relays.De relay part of the safety analysis for each core. location:Tomimson Library, Arkana e opmbility macation resins The Commission has provided Tech University, Russellville, Ark =nama unaffeed b aman of dme est the standards for determining whether a 72aD1 lP ant is in a degraded condition would significant hazards consideration exists Attorneyforlicensee: Nicholas S. be increased if setpoint verification was as stated in to CFR 50.92. A proposed Reynnida. Esq Bishop, Libennan, Cook, done monthly.brefon, this does not amendment to an operating license for a Purcati and Reynolds,1200 Seventeenth incman the pmbabilny or facility involves no significant hazards Street NW, Washington. DC 20086 consequences of an accident previonly consideretton if operation of the faciffty NRCPioject Director:}ose A. Calvo evaluated. In accordance with the proposed h proposed amendment does not amendments would not:(1) involve a Cemnweale u=a= Compan7. involve any hardware changes.W type significant increase in the probability or Docket Nos. STN 85 454 and SW BD-and frequency of the surveillance consequences of an accident previously 455. Byssa gestism Unit Nos.1 and 3 remains unchanged. FSAR analyses and evaluated: or (2) Create the possibility of Ogle County,IRhens; and Decket N4 system design envelope the low of a new or different kind of accident fronn STN 50 486 Braidwood Station. Unit No. Engineered Safety Feature or Reactar any accident prevlously evaluated; or(3) 1 Will Ceesty Illisons Protection System Faretions. Wrefore, involve a significant reduction in a Date of application for amendments: this does not create ti a possibility of a margin of safety. May 20,1987 new or different kind of accident from A discussion of these standards as Description of amendments request any accident previously evaluated. they relate to the proposed change %e amendment would revise Technical h intent af the requirement does not follows: Specification Tables 4.31 and 4.3 2 to encompass setpoint verification at a (t) Consideration of Probability and eliminate setpoint veri $ cation when frequency greater than eightean (ig) Consequences of Accident:h fuel performing the monthly and quarterly months.The proposed amendment enrichment is inchrded aleng with other Trip Activating Device Operational Test serves to clarify the understanding of factors in performing the nuclear design for the undervoltage and the surveillance frequency.Therefore, of fuel which in turn is outriected to a underfrequency relays.The current this does not involve a significant safety analysis prior to reload in Technical Specifications contain a note reduction in a margin of safety, accordance with NRC methodology.h (Note 3 in Table 4.3-2) that indicates that brefore, based on the above specification of fuel enrichment in the setpoint verification is not required considerations, the staff has d=*=W core design section above does not during the hfonthly Trip Actuating that these changes involve ao significant uniquely determine the values of the Dertce Operational Test for the Crfd hazards considerations. reactor core parameters which are Degraded Voltage.The intent of this Loca1Public Document Room important to safety. Small changes im note wve that setpotnt verification was. location: For Byron Station the Rockford

'6 Federal Register / Vst, 52, No.126 / Wednesday, July 1,1987 / ~;otices $4545, 808/8 hascide/orpsposedno sign /ffcont Public Ubrary,215 N. Wyman Street, I operating characteristics are 9d9 cons / dent /on dederminatlan In Rockford. Illinois 61103: for Braidwood Thus, no new accident possibilities an Station the Wilmington Township Public created. accordance with to CFR 80.92, the Library,201 S. Kankakee Street.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a licenses has reviewed the proposed Wilmington, Illinois 60481.

margin of safety. As stated above, the license amendment and has concluded Attorneyforlicensee MichaelMiller, proposed changes do not diminish ECCS, that it does not involve a significam Isham, Lincoln & Beal. One First LOCA mitigation capability and themby hazards consideration.The basis for this National Plaza,42nd Floor, Chicago, do not impact the consequences to the conclusion is that the three criteria of to I Illinois 60603. protective boundaries.Thus, these CFR 50.92(c) am not compromised: a changes will not reduce the margin of conclusion which is supported by the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power safety as defined as in any Technical liesnsee's determinations made Company, Docket No. 50 213 Haddam Specifications. pursuant to 10 CFR 50.50. The proposed Neck Plant, Middlesex County, Moreover, the Commission has change does not involve a significant Connecticut provided guidance concerning the hazards consideration because the application of standards set forth in 10 Date of amendment request June 1 CFR 50.92 by providing certain examples change would not: 3937 (March 6,1986,51 FR 7751) of

1. Involve a significant increase in the amendments that are considered not probabdity or consequences of an Description of omendment request.

During the 1987 outage, modifications, likely to involve significant hazards accident previously evaluated. The including the installatici of new motor, consideration. The proposed license probability of occurrence or the operated valves, will be made to the amendment !s most closely enveloped consequences of an accident or existing emergency core cooling systems by example (ii), a change that malfunction of equipment important to constitutes an additional control not safety previously evaluated

• the (ECCS) to assure the capability of adequate core cooling over the entire presently included in the Technical Safety Analysis Report is not increased range of pipe breaks. The proposed Specifications. ne proposed since the proposed change results in license amendment will require (1) new amendment would require new periodic more restrictive heat up limitations than periodic surveillance requirements to surveillance requirements to ensure presently required while reducing the ensure correct valve position. (2) post-valves are in the correct position, new probability of operator etto during bt mair.tenance surveillance requirements f,q

,,nt fo the t alves, and for the new throttle valves, and (3) new

2. Create the possibility of a new or valve and ECCS system retest

(([g y9," different kind of accident from any requirements following modifications t g o ca ons to any ECCS subsystem that would alter any ECCS subs stem previously evaluated.ne possibility for ECCS flow characteristics. Accordingly, the staff proposes to an accident or malfunction of a different determine that the proposed license type than any evaluated previously in Basis forproposed no significant amendment does not involve a the Safety Analysis Report is not I significant hazards consideration. created since the failure to satisfy the cordance t h W he Document Romn mquimmets oMe pmssum licensee has reviewed the proposed location: Russell Library,123 Broad temperature lim'.tations is similar to a changes and has concluded that it does Street, Middletown, Connecticut 06457. pressurized thermal shock event which a gm i "'haza a n v[ b sis, Attorney for licensee: Cerald Garfield, has been thoroughly evaluated and cg Esquire. Day, Berry and Howard. documented. conclusion is that the three criteria of 10 Counselors at Law, City Place, Hartford,

3. Involve a significant reduction in a CFR 50.92(c) are not compromised; a conclusion which is supported by the CNfe[D t$t Cecil O-

• • Y"
  • I'IY
• *
• Y " I'* I' as defined in the basis for any Technical licensee's determinations made Thomas pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. The proposed Specifications is not reduced since the change does not involve a significant Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power margin of safety for the presert and the hazards consideration because the Company, Docket No,50-213. Haddam new proposed temperature limit curves

hange would not:

Neck Plant, Middlesex County, are identical.

1. Involve a significant increase in the Connecticut The staff has reviewed the licensee's probability or consequences of an determination that the proposed license accident previously evaluated. As stated Date of ornendment request: June 1, amendment involves no significant above, these changes ensure that the 1987 hazards considerations and agrees with present system configuration is Description of amendment request the licensee's analyses. Accordingly, the maintamed, therefore, the probability of %e proposed license amendment will staff proposes to determine that the occurrence of the design basis accidents revise the heat up curve (Figure 3.4-8) to proposed license amendment does not is unchanged. Since adequate LOCA provide a lar8er interval over which the involve a significant hazards mitigation is maintained, the low temperature pressurization consideration.

consequences of the design basis protection system (LTOPS) must be oNhc Domment Room accidents are not impacted. placed into operation. More specifically,

2. Create the possibility of a new or the proposed heat up rate change results locadon: Russell Library,123 Broad different kind of accident from any in a pressure / temperature limit curve Street Middletown, Connecticut 06457.

previously evaluated. There are no new shift. This shift increases the Attorney for licensee: Gerald Garfield, failure modes associated with this temperature range over which the Esquire Day. Berry and Howr* 3, proposed change. No new systems or LTOPS can effectively be placed into Counselors at Law, City Place Hartford, designs are introduced by these operation and decreases the probability Connecticut 001034499. proposed changes: therefore, no new of operator error during plant heat-up NRC Project Director: Cecil O. failure modes are created. In addition, and cooldown operations. Thomas

,24546 Federal Rosseter / Vol. S2. No.128 / Wednesday, July 1,1987 / Mone:s Connecticut Yanka= Ma=k Powse teamein unchanged. hs, rm new proposes le determine that the proposed Company, Docket No. 50 213. Haddam accidents are created. change levolves no significant harards Neck Plant, MMases: County,

3. Involve a significant reduction in a consideration.

Con =acHcut margin of safety. As alated above, the LocalPublic DocumentJtoom proposed changes would maintain Date of amendment request June 1, existing stmetural margtes and the total ' location: Van Zoeren Library. Hope College, Hollan.h. d, Michigan 49423. 198 leakage (primary to secondary) would - Au rneyfor censaeduM1.Bacu. Description of amendment request remain within the acceptable kmits of He proposed license amendment will the existing technical specifiestion. Esqda, Consumen Nwer Gmpany, revise Technical Specification Section Ns, thne changes will not reduce the 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson. 4.10.D.1 to provide a long-term margin of safety as defined in any plant Michigan 49201. acceptance criteria for the steam technical specification. NRCPmject Direcian Martim J. generstor tubes with defects in the ne staff has reywwed the licensee's Virgilio, Acting, rolled region (bottom four inches of the determination that the proposed license Dairyland Power Coopentive, Docket tube) and update the bases for this amendment involves no signi6 cant criteria. This proposed change wul not hazards considerations and agrees with No. 50 40s, Lacrosse Beihng Water affect repair criteria for flaw indications the licensce's ana}yses. Accordingly. the Reactor, Lacrosse, Wisconsin located outside of the roll expansion staff proposes to determine that the pot, of amendment request: May 22. region. The proposed bcense proposed license amendment does not 1987 amendment wiu also modtfy the current involve significant hazards Description of amendment requese requirement that 'The pluggmg limit for considerations. sleeves will be determined prior to the LocalPublic Document Room The licensee proposes that License No. I 1987 refueling outage for Cycle 15." to, location; Russell Library,123 Broad DPR-45 fer the lacrosse Boiling Water i "The plugging limit for sleeves will be Street, Middletown. Connecticut 06457. Reactor (LACBWR) be amended to determined prior to the first refueling Attorneyforlicensee Gerald Garfield, possess.but-not operate status.ne outage fouowing sleeve instauation," Esquire Day, Berry and Howard. Licensee stated in a letter dated April 29, since, to date, no sleeves have been Counselors at Law, City Place, Hartford, 1907 that LACBWR would be instaued at the Haddam Neck Plant. The Connecticut 06103-3499. permanently shot down and a proposed license amendment will also NRCPmjectDirector Cecil O. decommissioning plan submitted to the revise Technical Specification Section nomas NRC. LACBWR was permanently shut 4.10.D.2 to delete the exclusion of tube Consumers Power Company, Docket No. down on April 30,1987, row 37, column 73 in Steam Generator 2 50 255 Palisades Plant, Van Bumn Basisforproposedno significant from plugging, since this tube has County, Michigan hazards consideration deierinination: i l subsequently been plugged during a The Commission has provided guWe l mid-cycle shutdown in Ju}y,1986, te of amendment requeste June 5, concsrning the application of the Basis forproposedno significan hazards considemtion determinotw? Description of amendment request: standards for determining whether a n:In This request modifies a previous request significant hazards consideration exists accordance with 10 CFR 50.92, the for a change in the augmented in-serdce in 10 CFR Part 50.82 by providing certain licensee has revi-wed the attached inspection requirements for the steam examples (51 FR 7751). One of the proposed changes and has concluded generators dated September 28,1984 (50 examples (ii) of actions not likely to i that they do not involve a significant FR 20975). This request would maintain involve a significant hazards hszards consideration. The basis for this the interval for such inspections at each consideration relates to changes that i i conclusion is that the three criteria of10 refueh'ng but not to exceed 24 months constitute additional restrictions or CFR 50.92(c) are not compromised, a except that the interval could be controls not presently included in the conclusion wh".h is supported by the extended to 30 months provided the

license, licensee e determinations mad <a mean degradation increase during the ne proposed action to amend License pursuant to 10 CFR 50.50. The proposed previous inspection interval was less No. DPR-45 to possess-but-not-operate changes do not involve a significant than 1 percent status is more restrictive than the hazards con i eration because these Basis forproposedno significant present license because the present c anges wo Mt.

hazards consideration detertninotion: license would permit opetation oi the 1, involve a significant increase in the inspection results, that show for the facility. Therefore, since the proposed probability or consequences of an previous operating laterval that there amendment is encompassed by example cccident previously analyzed. As stated was essentially no degradation of steam I (U) of acums that an conMend not above, since these changes meet the generator tubes, would ensure that the l safety margins of Regulatory Guide probability and consequences of the likely to involve significant hazards consideranon, the Cansmisswa has 1.121, the probability of the design basis acx:ident previously evaluated in the accidents remains unchanged. Stnce the FSAR, Le., steam generstar tube rsyture, made a proposed determination that the i leakage is less than aDowed by the are unchanged.The possibibty of an proposed actwn does not involve a l existing technical specification, the accident not previously annalyzed he amt significant hazards cmsidenten. i consequences of the design basis created because this chaage only af5ects Loco /Public Documerrt Roosn - accidents are not impacted. steam generator tube integrity, and the location: Lacrosse Public Library,800 I

2. Create the possibility of a new or rupture of these tubes has been Main Street. LaCroese, Wisoomsin 54601.

different kind of acx:ident from any previously analyzed. Smace the Assorneyforlicensee: Kevin GaDen. previously evaksated. No new syna=== inspection resuits showed sm signtfscant Esquire, Newman and Holtzinger,1815 L l or deeegne are introduced by these degradation in the previous interval, no Street. NW, Washington, DC 2003e proposed changes; therefore, ne new significant reduct6ae ne the amarg6a of NRCPmject Direcwr: Herbert N. fzilure modes are creatad. In addition, safety is cansed by time exte=" Beh the plant operating characteristics Based on the foregning. the staf i

Fedesel Radster / Vol, at, No. tae / Wednesday, haly 1, tetF / Notless 34547. Detroit R&ses Company, Desbet No. SS. Indiantes shot tido laspectima method is herw=la=8an proposes to M1, Forud-2, Meerse County, hashigen ineffective andincendoseve h deterudme tint the revised hoense Date of amenehnent reqpeest January predictlag b4 d-t us. As osadition proposed by the licensee does t 28,1987, as su- -- - ' ' May sa, see7 ausnuted bearig som progr e notinvoin a signincent hazards DescriptiokomenMat togsset, instituted by the licensee as a rossit af consideration. The proposed ansendment would revlw subsequent bearing failures in late 19e5, Ioamipublic Documentitoom the Fermi-2 and not eno5mpassed in the present '. location: Monroe County Library license condition, is considered to be a System,3700 Custer Road, Monroe, Facility Opemtig umnee No. NPF-mm emct and effectin meansim Michigan 48161. 43, License Condition 2.C.(10) entitled. detecting incipient bearing failure.This Attorneyfbr thelicensee: John Flynn. " Emergency Diesel GeneretorImbe OG meadinvdm se perioec Esq, Detroit Edison Company,2000 Surveillance progra's (Section s.5.7 inmurment d du main bearisig Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226. SSER 6)", to:(1) incorporate the in each engine.De proposed re NRCPmfeet Director: Martin J. requirement for periodic gap checks of license condition incorpoestes the Virgiho, Acting. the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) nh engine main bearings; and (21 delete the adagg Detroit Edissa Company, Docket No. 50-ee and "9",I"[g" g hee continues to require periodic analysis of 341, Forud 2, Mearoe Cosmty, Micidgan g , g, lube oil filter samples (without Alter. Date of amendmentsequest:May 27 requirement for a monthly anal of disassembly and removal), which the 1987 (NRC-87 00BB) EDG engin IM umpb. e stan agms wW mdm ee pmba% Deseniption of amendment request inspections and analyses required in the n er amage an e ntmducuos d The pmped license amendment would revised license condition will fm nutadalinto the tube ou systm change the Fermi 2 Faculty Operating supplement the action and surveillance wh!cfcald mntuall damage engine License No. NPF.43, Technical requirements pertaining to the EDCs in bmings.%e mised cem con &uon Specification 3/4.8.2, Table 4.8.2.11 Section 3/4A1 of the Fermi.2 Technical [ ulrem te Table y vi n cations o 1 TheI se dment posed I b'*d88 P'ff0"**

• 88d Notations (7) and (8) and the applicable the licensee's May 28,1987 letter.

supersedes the licensee's earlier comfan y beuer ensam se Bases which specify battery surveillance 8V8N8 Y 8 8

• 88 " *
• parsmeters foe a nominal specific proposal dated January 28,1987, and h

'p gravity electrolyte of 1.250.%ese was submitted in response to the [on'd o a nen bvo n a parameters are no longer considered Commission's safety evaluation dated significant increase in the probability or necessary by the licensee due to the April 7,1997. 9uences of an accident previo ly replacement of the Division II batteries Basisforproposedno significant ev$'at wi e,e a containlag 1.210 nominal hazards considemtion determination (2) As stated in (1) above, o rating he Comunission has pmided experience has shown that the frequent

1. 0* 8"I'Y 'I'**"Y

M""# E###I "' 8I " standards for detemining whether a disassembly of the oil filter as currently hosonfs tion determination: 8 significant hasards consideration exists required has not been effective in he Commission has provided (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed predicting incipient bearing failure standards for determining whether s l I amendment to an operst!ng license for a Further, the frequent disassembly of the facility involves no signi8 cant hazards ou filter increases the likelihood of signiBeant hazards mnsiderauon exists consideration if operation of the facility damaging the futer and/or introducing (10 CFR 50.e2(c)). A proposed in accordann wie the propmed foreign material into the lube oil system amendsnent to an opmung Ucem for a amendment would not:(1) involve a that could possibly dama e the engine faculty invdm no significant hazards significant increase in the probabuiy of bearings.ne addition of the bearing consideration if operation of the facility consequences of an accident previously gap checks as a part of the revied in accordance with the proposed evaluated: or (2) create the possibility of proposed license condition is considered amendment would not:(1) involve a a new or different kind of accident from to be a more positive method of significant increase in the probability or any accident previously evaluated; or (3) determining bearing performance, consequences of an accident previously involve a significant reduction in a =WmMn= the occurance of beadng evainated; or (2) create the possibility of margin of safety. fauure, anii better ensuring the a new or different kind of accident from The Commission's staff has reviewed availabiuty of the EDCs when needed, any accident previously evaluated: or (3) i the licensee's Janaary 28,1987 herefom, the proposed Ucem involve a significant reduction in a application as supplemented, and has condition amendment does not create margin of safety. determined that the proposed the possibility of a new or different kind The licensee has determined that the amendment involves no significant of accident from any previously changes pmposed to Technical hazards consideration for the reasons evaluated. Specification 3/4.8.2. Table 4 A2.11: stated below: (3) As stated in (1) and (2) above, the (1) Would not involve a sign 15 cant (1) The initial EDG lube oil new Ucense condition, which increase in the probability or surveillance program re erenced in the incorporates bearing gep cheds es an consequences of an accident previously present limose condition was developed inspection requirennent, and retains the evahnsted since the parameters for a se a result of bearing failures which requirement for the analysis of engine nominal specific gravity electrolyte of occurred in January 19s5. and required tube oil samples, wtB incrosse the 1.250 have been saperseded by the the quarterly disassembly and margin of safety, providing more reliable Parameters for a nominal specific inspection of the engine lobe oil fihar. information on bearing i n smvity electmlyte of1.no, which am Evaluation of Mta obtained by the wear, etc. As such, tbs license almedy specdned in Tehnical licensee in the performanos of filter condition===A= ant met involve a Specification Table 4A1.1-1 of the Ma:.t disassembly and i- ; -- (submitted significant redesasen as the margin of Tednical Spectfkstions. %e change is by the licassee's Janaary 20.1557 istter)

safety, an editorial carrection and

I l j

4S48 Federal Regist:r / Vol. 52, No.128 / W:dn:sday, July 1,1987 / Notic:s administrative in nature and therefore Shutdown (Mode 4), Cold Shutdown satisfactorily in response to seven falls into the category of amendments (Mode 5), or Refueling (Mode 6).

challenges. that are considered not likely to involve Although the proposed amendments

4. Turbine Trip on steam generator significant hazards consideration (51 FR were requested for both Units 1 and 2, water level.high high TS 4.3.2.2, Table 7751). Deletion of Table Notations (7) changes are proposed for Unit 2 only, 3.3-5, item 7.a. The response time test and (8) does not involve a physical Unit 1 is included in this notice only tvould be extended from August 15, change to the facility, change a limiting because the TSs are combined in one 1987, and would be perf6rmed prior to condition of operation (LCO), or change document for both Units.

entering Hot Shutdown (Mode 4) any operating practice; nor does Normally, since refueling outages following Unit 2 first refueling. This l removal of Table Notations (7) and (8) occur about every 18 months, extension instrumentation is reliable and has change any safety analysis or design beyond the 18. month interval required responded satisfactorily in respone to basis at Fermi-2. by the Es for such surveillance is three challenges. (2) Would not create the possibility of usually not necessary. However, due to

5. Feedwater Isolation on steam a new or different kind of accident from the extended length of the Unit 2 startup generator water level.high-high, E any sccident previously evaluated. As program and cycle 1, the licensee must 4.3.2.2, Table 3.3 5, item 7.b. The etated in (1) above, the proposed change either request and receive an extension response tune test would be extended is administrative in nature and the or shut down prior to the first scheduled from August 15,1987, and would be removal of Table Notations (7) and (8) refueling outage. Similar extension was performed prior to entering Hot from Table 4.8.2.11 of the Technical approved for Catawbe Unit 1 by Shutdown (Mode 4) following Unit 2 first Specifications does not involve a amendments issued July 3.1980 refueling. This instrumentation is physical change to the facility, change (Amendment No. 8 for Unit 1 and No.1 reliable and has responded an LCO. change any operating practi,ce, for Unit 2). Unit 2 is currently scheduled satisfactorily in response to three or change any safety analysts or design to enter its first refueling outage on challenges.

basis at Fermi.2. December 30,1987. Most of these

6. Feedwater Isolation on a reactor (3) Would not involve a significant surveillance must be performed on trip coincident with low reactor coolant reduction in a margin of safety. As Augus t 15,198", or la ter. Therefore, the system everage temperature.TS 4.3.2.2, sta ted in (1) and,(2) above, the proposed longest extension entails a period of 4.5 Table 3.3-5, item 8. The response time change is admimstrative, and the removal of Table Notations (7) and (8) months. Furthermore, the tests required test would be extended from August 15, imm Table 4.8.2.11 of the Technical will be performed if an outage of 1987, and would be performed prior to Specifications does not involve a suff cient duration occurs prior to the entering Hot Shutdown (Mode 4) ph sical change to the plant or its first scheduled refueling outage.

following Unit 2 first refueling.This operation, or any safety an6 lysis or The particular surveillance and the instrumentation is reliable and has dmgn basis which would cause a time at which the surveillance interval respondad satisfactorily in response to (including the 25% grace period allowed three challenges. T o as on a re e ed the by TS 4.0.2) will expire are discussed 7, Turbine-driven Auxiliary Feedwater below. Pump Steam Supply Valves Surveillance laensee's no significant hazards consideratiori determination and agrees

1. Feedwater Isolation on receipt of a to verify that they open upon receipt of v ith the licensee's analysis.

high doghouse water level signal,13 an auxiliary feedwater actuation test Accordingly, the Commission proposes Table 4.3 2, item 5.d. The trip actuating signal. TS 4.7.1.2.1b.3). The test would tJ determine that the requested device operational test would be be extended from August 15,1987, and amendment involves no significant extended from August 15,1987, and would be performed.nrior to entering hazards consideration. would be performed prior to entering Hot Standby (Mode 3) following Unit 2 Loca/ Public Document Room startup (Mode 2) or Hot Standby (Mode first refueling. These equipment and /Ocotion: Monroe County Library 3), as applicable, following Unit 2 first instrumentations are highly reliable and System. 3700 South Custer Road, refueling. There have been no feilures of have responded successfully in response Monroe. Michigan 48161. this circuitry and no actuations since to eleven challenges. 1 Attorney for the licensee John Flynn, preoperational testing.

8. Containment Valve injection Water

{ Esq. Detroit Edison Company,2000

2. Turbine Trip on loss of all main System Surveillance to verify injection l

Second Avenue. Detroit, Michigan 48220. feedwater pumps, TS Table 4.3 2, item flow to containment isolation valves TS j NRC Project Directorr Mutin J, 6,d. the trip actuating device operational 4.6.6.2. The test would be extended from Virgilio, Acting, test would be extended from August 15, October 29,1987, and would be 1987, and would be performed prior to performed prior to entering Hot Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-entering Startup (Mode 2) or Hot Shutdown (Mode 4) following Unit 2 first 1 i 413 and 50414, Catawba Nuclear Sttndby (Mode 3), as applicable, refueling This system is reliable with a i Station Units 1 and 2 York County, fdwing Unit 2 first refueling outage. good operating history and only three i South Carolina This instrumentation is reliable and has valves have not been tested. Date of amendment request lune 10, operated satisfactorily due to one

9. Diesel Generator inspection, during I

1987 as suppler.ented June 11 and to, challenge after completion of shutdown,in accordance with the i preoperational testing. manufacturer's recommendations, TS l 1987 Description of amendment request:

3. Turbine Trip on reactor trip, TS 4.3-4.8.1.1.2g.1). The inspection would be The proposed amendments would allow

2. Item 6.e. The trip actuating device extended from January 9.1988, and the extension. on a one-time basis, of operational test would be extended from would be performed prior to entering several 18-month Technical August 15,1987, and would be Hot Shutdown (Mode 4) following Unit 2 Specifica tion (TS) surveillance intervals performed prior to entering Startup first refueling. A complete inspection in until the first refueling outage for (Mode 2) or Hot Standby (Mode 3), as accordance with the TDI diesel Catawba Unit 2. This exten.sion is applicable, following Unit 2 first generator owners group inspection needed because these surveillance can refueling. This instrumentation is program was conducted on Unit 2 only be performed with the Unit in Hot reliable and has responded engines with satisfactory results.

j

Fedeeml Register / Vol. 52, No.126 / Wedmeaday.' July 1. ter / Notees 345N Routher senedience activittee wtB Black Smeet Red HIII, South Casohne spesellos of te maalter provides no continee to be conducted on schedule. 2e73e additicaniidermesan that woeld

10. Systeen Response Thee teste for Attorneyforlicensee:Mr. Albert Car, incmase telesdatsafety. Derefore, the prbnary RTDs associated with the Duke Power Company.432 Sent delethe,Mises would at a5ect the Gde manner from the todmiced Overtemperature Delta T and Omrah Seset, Gaelotte, Nare Carelha

=g en Overpower Delta T Reactor Trips.TS 2s242 . probabey of esservesne or the N8ChelsetDareder R.J.YW consegesnede of an ocekhmt r..h.4 i 4.3.1.2. Table 3.3-2 iteses 7. and 8. Mae evaluated. tests woeld be extended ben Duquesse 1@ Company.Ddekst No. September 11.19s7, sad smeld be so. ass, Beever VaBey Power statism. E D' P'oposed denps am bounded performed prior to ermertag Startep Unit No.1, Mdyplagert. Phansylvania by the FSAR week gam mkase (Mede 2) folloorbs Um.4 2 faret refoehag. accident analysts (Section 1413). Only the RTDs maain to be tested.De Me of segues @ 13-SpeelBmRy. proposed surninance 1887 requirement 4.111L1 would ensure that rest of the circuitry has been tested satisfactorily wition the required D8 proposed s/" 8

1. 8W appropriate omeykog to perfoemed so inamismar would thet the PBAR ar=*l==t analysis results surveillance interval. nese RTDs are d08 reliable and have successfuDy mat es weidd not be reesed or excmded.

required response time darug es last Wasta Gee Decay Tank Maaltor, and has, ne adverse nefety considations 'd88 C8'hI" C8 three previous tests (two on Unit 1 and would be intretammi this proposed '*I '" "I Y as proposedao signi)Scont es and the hazards consideration determimrtiert aruktant er - - of a type The Commission has provided certala [ I" *d 8""P *' go" '" * "****' '8 different front the previously evaluated "8 I was h atM m& examples (51 FR 7744) of actions IIkelf 2. able 3113, delete Action 35 since to involve no signiBcant hazards this actica stateaumt only appDas to the a L1115 would restrict considerations. The request involved in "* nit"

3. Apar i a

this case does aet match any of these

3. Tat le 4413, date Itame 4.b and

&e quant $ of P - - eestained examples. However, the staff has 4.c to reRect the change to Table 3111. in sech gas sempe tank. wasM reviewed the licanese's regemet for the

4. Serve!!!ance requirement 4.11.2.Lt.

Provide aseenace that la se met of above aniendments and determined that would be clarified by modifying an una6 salanse of the tears should this request be haplemented. It mfance to the Waste Gas Decay Tank contanta, es malting total body would not (1) involve a significant

Monitor, exposum to an indwidual M at be increase in the probability or Basisforproposedno significant nearest escluaien area boundary for two consequences of an accident previously hazartis eussideration determinotlant hee lausadiotely fellowing the onset of evaluated,ne probehility of am The Conndssion has prov6ded

' the release would not enamed 0.5 mes. accident is not significantly increased standards for u.. mains whether a N sPoci$ed liasil reendcting the because these changes will not a5ect ei-ib-* hazards consideration exists quensity of redimessivity costeined la the design or operstmn of the Unit.N (th CFR 30.92fc}}. A proposed each gas storage tank was spqciaod to consequences of an arcirlant will not be amendmetzt to an operating Beense for a ensure that the total body empeesse

• (=, lb="ly increased since the systems facility involves no =i='had hamands amoulting bem the poseelsted==3==a=

affected are required to be operable consideration L,, mis of the fact!!ty remained a suitable freetion af he throe 6 other applicable TS in accordants wfth the poposed referemos vains set forth in 10 CFR h requirements. Furthermars, the amendment wooid notjt) tavolve a totL11(aXik Desofase, the propeesd extension to the surveillance totervals le p_.""._.: incrwase in me psobabt!!ty or changes world not aEmet the maagia af,, for a brief period (4.5 months). and consequences of an accident previously safety and weedd be sensistet with es should not significantly affect the sbatty evahmted:(r) create the possfbO!ty of a FSAR accident analyses. of the rytems to function properly. Also, new or difhrrent kind of accident from De staff==-= with the Bcensee's it would net (2) create the possibill of any accident previously evaluated; or (3) assessmest and proposes to determine a new or diflerent kind of accident involve a significant reduction in a that the requested amendawnt involves any accident previously evaluated marytn of safety. as sig=sarme baengde rummersthem, because the dealga and operation of the %e licensee stated that the posed Locol Aibac h===st Acaer Unit will not be afiscted. Nmfare, no changes do not involve a _ _ locatieur R. F. James Memortal lJbrary, new kinds of acc6 dents are tatroduced. hazards consideration becmase: SEB Praakka Avenue, Abguippa, Finally,it would not (3) tervolve a 1.%e revision to surveillance Pennsylvania 13sst significant reduction in a marytn of regatrement 4.1115.1 would require Attorneyfor Jenseer Gerald safety because the surveillance interval-verification of the quantity of OnnrmoE. Esqatre, }ey E. SGberg, extension is for a brief period (4.5 radioactive material conteined in each Entales. 5 hew, PRemaa. Poeta, and months), and the systems are required te gas storage tank at least once per 24 Trowbridge,23ee M Street, NW, be operable through other applicable TS hours when radioeceve meterials are Washtesten.DC asest requirements. In addition, the equipasent being added to the tank and the NRChoject Directorr John F, Stolz has proven to be rehable through concentration of the primary coolant is hipmans @ Campey, Dodet h. satisfactory responses to scruations and bater than see micro curies /ral.N asever Vater Power Station prior inspections. neee stated that this action would h I' Based on the above, the Commission ensure the accident analysis value la the proposes to determine that the changas FSAR would not be aanseded end that Date of amendment request April EB, do not involve significant hazards NUREG.0872, Revis6on a does est that a 1957 considerations. radielion esamiter er a sesspier Beer rute Brief '-+ 0 f ofomsmerwat loca/PuMc Document Room messatig doetne ce the weste see requese %eTodaleelSpeelfkstions loarties York Canary IJbery.130 East holder system. %e itemmese samed telt for Beever VeBey Unit 2 were developed

24580 Federal Register / Vol. 82. No.10 / Wednesday. July 1.1967 / Notices l based on those for Unit 1.!n the proom days until the first refueling outage drift effsets on the instrument, as a result the of development, the staff and the scheduled to begin on September 15. extension will not neult in a decrean in ths licensee discovered arrors and needs for 1987. Safety Relief Valve acoutic monitor clarification in the Unit 1 Technical (3) TSe 4.4.3.2.2a, 4.6.1.3d. 4A1.3f, DhYo#f,"',,"[,fon does not***"Y ' th' "g"" t' Specifications. Errors that involve 4.6.1.31,4.6.2.3.d.2, and 4.6.2.1.e.2 would, ,g l technica. review are being addressed by be modified, on one time basis, to involve a design, confisure tion or the licensee and the staff separate from extend tha schedule for the required op,.stional change to the plant and the ? the sub}ect request. surveillance leak rate tests by a period response to events is unchanged. There is no The requested amendment would of time that ranges from 5 days to a increue in the probability or consequnce of I correct editorial errors (spelling. maximum of 41 days until the first any accident pmvlously evaluated. capitaliza tion, grammatical etc.) and refueling outage scheduled to begin on

b. b proposed change does not create the restate some specifications in the same September 15,1987.The current poHibility of a new or difftrent kind of j

way they are stated in the Unit 2 Technical Specifications require a accident trom any accident pr.viously a Technical Specifications. In addition, surveillance test to be performed at evaluated becaue the change in the l the amendhlent would relocata license intervals no grester than 24 months for h",'[,*Y,N,u oo e aco ) condition 2.C(6), concerning secondary 'IS 4.6.1.3d and at '.ntervals no greater specification for the system and the safety i i t water chemistry monitonng program, to than 18 months for the other TSs that analysis, and does not involve a design Section 6.8.5 of the Technical are pmposed to be modified.The types change or physical change, and therefore i Specifications.'!his relocation does not ofleak rate tests involved are Type B does not alter the design response of the l change the nature of the requirement and C tests specified in Appendix ! to 10 instrumentation. Thus, no new accider i i and is only an editoriti change. CFR part 50, reactor system boundary scenano is introduced by this revised } Basis forproposedno significant hazards considemtion determination valve tests, and tests of air systems frequency of calibration of the acoustic r I' "' roviding a seal against drywell bypass

• ". De proposed change to the acoustic The Commission has provided guidance feakage. The request for extensions of c concerning the application of these the surveillance intervalincludes a total

[ihr";c,'nN'c"gi((n oh,";"[" l standards by providing certain of 52 valves. An exemption to Appendix becaue the change in the frequency of 1 examples ($1 FR 7751). One of these. J to 10 CFR Part 50, Section III.D.3 is also calibration for the acnustical monitor sensor Example (i). involving no significant required. This section requires Type C is consistent with the oesign specification of I hazards considerations is "A purely administrative change to technical testing ofisolation valves at intervals the system a-d the sensor design is not j not to exceed 2 years, which is the basis sensitive to the surveillance penod. j specifications." The requested changes of Section 4.6.1.3d of the TSs. AdditionaUy, as delineated in the i all match this example. On such basis. the staff proposes to characterize these The licensee's request for a one. time just fication, the proposed change will not extension of the surveillance schedule ""*"'# "9"I"*'#'

• O' changes as involving no significant I.imiting ConQtions of Operation contained hazards consideration.

i r the primary containment /drywell, in the Technical Specifications nus, the localPublic Document Room hydt gen mixing trains is the subject c-inargin of safety is not impacted. location: B. F. Jones Memorla! 1.ibrary, a separate Federal Regista notice. (2) One time modification of the 663 Franklin Avenue. Aliquippa* Basisforpmposedno significant Pennsylvania 15001 A880'd8 C0"#id8#Ufl0" d888fmM8tMal surveillance interval for testing the 1 Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald The Commission has provided drywell bypass leakage. With regard to the three standards, the licensee stated-i Charnoff, Esquire. jay E. Silberg, standards for determining whether a

a. m proposed amendment to the Esquire, Shaw, pittman. Potts, and a gnificant hazards consideration exists Technical Specifications would not involve a l

- rowbridge,2300 N Street, NW, as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed significant increau in the probability or T./ashinhton, DC 20036 amendment to an operating license for a consequences of an accident previously ' NRC rvjectDirector: John "~ Stolz facility involves no significant hazards evaluated becaum there is no change in the { consideration if operation of the facility duign or performance of plant systems or a l Culf States Utilities Company, Docks 1 in accordance with the proposed cornponents imm thou nabated in se Final I No. 50 458, River Bend Station. Ur it 5 amendment would not:(1) involve a Safety Analysis Repor@W W proposed West Feliciana Parish touisiana significant increase in the probability or N3 de o6 I Date of arnendment request March 10, consequences of an accident previously near passive nature of b drywell structure. 1987 as supplemented June 9,1967 evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of adowing the DryweU Bypus taak Test to be l Description of amendment request, a new or different kind of accident from performed et 6 mfuehns outage will not i The proposed amendment would modify any accident previously evaluated; or (3) result in any additionalloes of structural l the Technical Specifications (TSs] to involve a significant reduction in a integrity. Tut data previously obtained l extend the surveillance interval for margin of safety.The licer,see addressed nnals that the current drywen bypass y8p,asmaU certain Surveillance Tests. The proposed the above three standards in the o e allowed ,g amendment would revise the Technical amendment application. Specifications as follows: (1) Change in the surveillance interval poussyof a h duign ualysis. (1) TS 4.4 2.1.1(b) would be changed to for Performing a channel calibration of No incnns in the probability or connquencu of an accident, therefore, require a channel calibration of tb, the acoustic monitor for each safety / exists. acoustic monitor for each aafety/ relief relief valve. With regard to the three

b. N proposed change does not create the l

valve to be performed at least once per standards, the licensee stated: pouibility of a new or d fferent type of i refueling cycle instead of at least once

a. h proposed change does not involve a accident from any accident previously per 18 months as required in the current significant increase in the probabihty or evaluated because this change does not l

TSs. consequences of an accident previously involve a design change or involve a change 4 l (2) TS 4.6.2.2 would be modified, on a evaluated because the change in b in the operating mode of existing equipment. surveillance interval wiu not result in a Thus. no new accident scenano is introduced. one-time basis, to extend the decrease in the instrument accuracy. nis

c. h proposed change does not involve a I

surveillance schedule for testing the position is supported by the manufacturer's significant reduction in the margin of safety drywell bypass leakage by three (3) information that then an no time nlated becaue the margin of safety discuued in & l i f i L.____________

Federal Register / Vol. 5?, No.126 / Wednesday, July 1.1967 / Notices 24551 l'SAR Section 6.Lt.1.3.4 assumes the drywell the requested===M==at which merely a new or different kind of accident from bypass test to be conducted at each refueling requests to delay testing. any accident previously evaluated; or (3) outage. AUowing the technical specification f.The requested amendment concems involve a t'gnificant reduction in a to agree with the statement in the FSAR does schedule relief for surveillance testing of a margin of safety.The licensee addressed not. therefore cause a reduction in the limited number of conW-nt toolation the above three standards in the margin of safety previously evaluated. ltem a. valves and dryweH accese doors will not above furthermore. divn==ad the passive result in a significant rhange in the amounts amendment application. n2ture of the drywell sind It is because of this or types of efDuents that sney be released ofE. (1) One-time extension of the pissive nature that it can also be stated that site. surveillance interval for the ADS. With no reduction in the margin of ufety exist. De NRC staff has reviewed the regard to the three standards, the (3) Change in the surveillance licensee's no signir. cant hazards licensee states: intervals. on a one-time basis, for consideration determination and agrees

a. The proposed change does not involve a performing leak rate tests. With regard with the analysis, significant incnan in the probability or to the three standards. the licensee LocalPublic Document Room caww of an accident previously stated:

Location: Government Documents evaluated because the increase in the surveillance interval wiu not result in a

1. The proposed amendment would not Department. Imulslana State University.

mducum tn mtem musMuty w wm it involve a significant incmase in the Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70003 'II'C' 'h' *hEI'Y I 'h' 'Y'" '" PI '" I'* probability ce the consequences of an Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, design functi n. nis change wiu not effect accident previously evaluated results from Es9 Conner and Wetterbahn.1747 Jr.'nnsy"lvania Avenue, NW, Washingtoa system configuration or operation. nis this change because. Pe change in surveillance interval is supported

a. The valves were last tested satisfactory DC 20006 by successful completion of ste.rt-up test.

cnd due to the short period of the extensioa no significant increase in the probability of NRCProject Director: Jose A. Calvo succeuful performance of SRVs during plant squipment failure is postulated. Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket operation the high reliability of the system e mp nents and by completion of monthly

b. ne LIRT testias provides verification of No. 58458, River Bend Station, Unit 1

• h *c #. [ "

West fem== Parish, Louisiana c,j es a t e et tion of the val when y called on to perform its isolation function. Date of amendment request: March 18, b.nis change wiu not enate the The increase in surveillance frequency does 1987 as supp!=tnented June 3,1987. Pouibihty of a new or different kind of not affect the probabilities of the valve Descriptia W > 7endment request: accident from any accident previously evaluated because it does not involve any cetuating when called upon to perform its %e proposel ar!.;udment would revise 'h*"8" ' 'I'***

• required isolation. Isolation function testing the Techrical specifications (TSs) to A change in surveillance interval wiu not are satisfactory and current.

extend the surveillance intervals for the create any new accidents.

c. The change increases allowable surveillance interval leu than e% beyond the automatic depressurization system c.ne proposed change will not current conservative surveillance

( ADS) and the calibration frequency of significantly redum a margin of safety requirements and has no affect on the the drywell air cooler condensate flow. because the rehability of the system to assumptions of valve leakages assumed in The proposed amendment would modify perform its function is not significantly the present accident analysis. the TSs as follows: effected. ne system design, operation. and 2.nis change would not create the (1) TS 4.5.1.e.1,4.3.3.11.B1h,4.3.3.1 ability to function when required remain possibility of a new or different kind of 1.A.2.1, and 4.3.3.2 would be changed to "d=W AdditionaDy, as deUnasted in the accident from any accident previously extend the surveillance interval for the justmcation, the pmpond change wiu not evaluated becaun the proposed change ADS on a one time basis, to the Lhl% Mums of Operadon contMned effect the performance requirements in the introduces no new systems, modes of operation, fauure modes or other changes to refueling outage scheduled for in the Tech d Specincadon. nus, h any equipment.ne proposed change does September 15,1987. De surveillance margin of si fety is not impacted, not change the system functional analysis will become overdue on August 18 and (2) Extet slon of the surveillance and therefore. new accident scenarios are not 18,1987 in accordance with the current interval for performing the drywell air credible based on scheduhns of testing alone. TSs which require that the surveillance cooler condensate flow rate monitoring-- be performed once per 18 months.The system calibration. With regard to the si n uctio e ma of ufety TSs require manualinitiation and three standards, the licensee states: because, based on the enclosed technical justification which indicates the number of functional testing of the ADS.

a. ne propond change does not involve a valves and penetrations involved, their (2)'I3 4.4.3.1.c would be changed to significant increue in the probability or current leakage rates and estimated leakage extend the surveillance interval for cc%r.cs of an accident previously rates at proposed 0015-87 refuehng date, the performing the drywell air cooler evaluated becaum the change in the followmg can be stated:

condensate Dow rate monitoring system surveillance interval will not result in a

a. nose valves for which extensions are channel calibration from at least once decrease in the required instrument accuracy, being requested have for the most part, based per 18 months to at least once per 24 This positim is supported by the purpose of this system la to alert and aid the operator in on trutial and subsequent LLRT results.

months'fofPtoMsedno signif/ cant & 818 defining an event no credit is taken in the exhibited a high degree ofleak tight Safety Analysis for the alarms for high rehabihty. hazards considerutw, n determmationi drywen air cooler drdn now. Opers tot acton b Overau LLRT shows a very tight containment. De Commission as provided results from information received from b

c. The drywen airlock and the personnel standards for determining whether a dryweU sump Gow not the air cooler door m the drywell equipment hatch have significant hazards consideration exists condensate Dow and therefore, the response demonstrated a high degree of leak tight as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed to previously evaluated events wiu be reliabihty and are infrequently used.

amendment to an operating license for a unchanged. Since the revision does not

d. The requested extension does not facility involves no signiGcant hazards involve a design. configuration or operational significantly increase the allowable consideration if operation of the facility change to the plant and the response to fraquency interval provided in the Technical events is unchanged, here is no increase in Specifications. (The maximum increase is in accordance 4 the pmposed the probabili+y or consequence of any approximately etl amendment would not:(1) involve a accident previously evaluated.

e. There wiu be no identified increase in significant increase in the probability or

b. The proposed change does not create the postulated individuti offsite or cumulative consequences of an accident previously possibility of a new or different kind of occupational radiation exposure as s *esult of evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of accident from any accident previously

i assus Federal Register / V:1. 33, Na iD / Wedneedey, tdy 1. tear / Notlous .va>usied b.eans as.has in se main eteam nne redtetton idsk toelation inl888ensisnalnuts.a.s.neasa.s.a frequency of onllbretles of a,s drywell als actuation instrumentatiost channel and 8.8.b); vert!! cation that eask cooler drain flow ladication wel remain calibratk a p'abh 41.L14. Item 3. automade vales of the e service within the present design criteria and and logic systes.'easellemal toets water embeystem actuatse to correct respond as previously evaluated and does 4.812 and 4312) '!he screenlease posittas and tbs pump starte en a not involve a daign change or physion! Werval would be asslanded, en a one-norsaal sorelce water lowpreestre change. and therefore does not alter the Mme basis, by 11 days entil die Arst signal US ty12'b): ver floation that r scTct t clo traduesd cycle refueling outage scheduled to' sech main control room air conditioning o this revised frequency of onlibrossa of the begin on September 15,1987. subsystem automatically switches to the acoustic monitors. (3) %s4.3.21 4.3.31 43.3.3.4.3.91 emergency mode of operation on a

c. The proposed cheoge to the serveillaase L8.1. 4.6.314.6.414.6.5.3. 4 6.5.4. L6.51 LOCA emergency mode actuation test period does not involve a siipmacoat 415.6. 4.7.1.1,4.71 and 411.1 would be signal and that the isolation valves cloes reductaan la a mergm of safety h-==== the modified to extend the surveiHence within 30 seconds and that the control chance la the frequency of calibratism lor the interval, on a one-time besis, for room is maintained at a positiva drywell air cooler drain flow in&cetion is not DMelon I and DMelee E emergency pressure (15 4.7 4 2 =): and electrical used in the accident analysis and theruhme no mducues ne se anahud marse d eassey core cooling systems survelDunee teste power systema surveillance (B from August 1ss7 to the completion of 411.111: ass f).

h su t the propseed change ril aos the firet refueling outage which is Bosis forproposedne siprrificant effect h performance requ6 essenes in the scheduled to begin on September 15 Assoid, consideration dederminotiore L.imitine Condatsons of Operstson contained 1987. %e affected surveillance tests are De Commission has provided in h Technical specincetian. nes, the logic eystem functional tests and standards for deter-intnqr whether a marsta of eefety is not 6-r-a-i simulated automatic operaties of all significant hazards consideration exists ne staff has reviewed the licensee's channels for the isolation actuation as stated in to CFR 50.82(c). A proposed no signiScant hazards considerstloo instrumentation (TS 4312. Table 412.1- .m.=a-.ne to an operating license far a determination and agrees with the

1. Items Ed and 6.f): logic system facility le.volves no signine==a hasards analysis.

functional tests and simulated eutomatic caseidersuan if operation of the facihty Loco / Pub //c DocumentRoom operation of a!! channels for Division I in accordspee with the proposed Locotion:Covernment Documents trip system LPCI mode and LPCS amendment would not:(1) t? volve a Department. Louisiana State University, systems (TS 4.3.31 Table 4311-1. hem .ipincent increase in the probability or Baton Rouge. La"'aiaa' 70003 A.11. Division D trip system LPCI B and consequences of an accident previously A ttorney for licensee: Troy B. Conner. LPCI C systems (TS L3.31 Table 4.311* evaluated; or (2) create the possibiBty of Ir., Esq., Conner and Wetterbahn,1747

1. Item B.1) and Division I and Illoes of a new or different kind of accident frean Pennsylvania Avenue NW.Washmgton. power (TS 4131 Table 413.11. Item any acadset previonaly evalented; or p)

DC 20008 D.1): ECCS response time for each trip gay,[,,, un,.a* reduction in a NRC Project Director Joe, A. Calve function (TS 4.3.3.3): logic system margin of safety.no liessenee addressed Gulf Subs Wities t'- p==y In&t functional tests and simulated automatic the above three standards in the No. 38-458. River Band Statism. Llait 1 oPeradon of an channels for primary amendment application. Wees Fahn=== Parish, Lainsieme containment ventilating system unit (1) Extension of theintervalfor cooler A and B (TS 419.2 Table 419.1-performing the functional test of the Date ofomendment request: May 11.

1. Items 1.s and 1.c); system functional test for LPCS pump, LPCI A pump LPCI penetrat. ion vdvs Isakage control 1987-

,y,g,,, I1u bconsee stated der Description of amendmentisquest: B pump and LPCI C pump (TS 411); foUewkg with reprd to the Gree The proposed amendment would revise system functional test of the standards-the technical specifications (TSs) to containment unit cooters (TS 413.2.c);

e. no proposed change does noe in,dee e i

extend the surveillance intervals, on a verification that each automatic significant hersees hs the,.d 2, er I one. time baaia, for the penetration valva isolation valve actuates to its isolation oomsegesness of an occident C, j leakage control system, the main steam position on an isolation test signal (I3 evaluesed beseene the lacrecee le c line radiation.hiah isolation actantion 4.6.41 Table 3.6.41): verification that surve31ence interval will not result in e instrumentation, and Division 1 and each secondary isolation system reduction in eyewm rdbebihty nor wtB it Division Il 18 moeth M'f% surveillance automatic isolation damper actuates to effect tlw obWty of thuyown k perfwm tw tests. The proposed amendment would its isolation system on a containment design femasten.11ue le demonstrated by the modify the TSs as followe: Isolation test signal (TS 4.613.b. Table continued monely and W fenceanal (1)13 4 6110.c would be modified to 3.6.5.3-1); system functional test of the extend the interval for performing the standby gaf treatment system and ne syewei opereuen and design will functional test of the penetration valve demonstration that the filter train starts brefore remain as deserbd in tim PSAR l?akage control system, on a one-time and isolation dampers open on a and as a result b rwponu to an event wit! basis, from every 18 months until the simulated automatic initiation signa! CIS remain u enalyzed. first cycle refueling outage scheduled to 4.6.5.4. Items dia and dab); system

b. This change will not create the begin September 15.1987. He current functional test of the shield building poseibihey of a new or &fferent kind of surveklance overdue date is September ammlus mixing subsystem and accident from any accident prev 6ousty 6,1987; hence, the extension is for a veri $ cation that the sobrystem starts evaluated because it does not involve any period of up to 7 days.

and isolation dampers open on a Ch * "8" *"Y'"" '""O8" d '" " r (2) TS 4.3.1141114 3.2.1. 4.312. simulated automatic initiating signal ("!1 " $ [*" ch, anYn ec ts and Tables 4.31.11 and 4.3111 would 4.e.5.5. Items ble and b.3.b); system c.ne proposed etange wi!!not be modified to extend the interval for functional test of each fuel building significantly reduce a margin of safety performing the main steam line ventilation charcoal filtration subsystem because the reliability of the system to radiation-high channel cabbration and verincation that the subsystem perform its function is not significantly (Table 411.11. Item 7 page 3/4 3-7 starts and isolation dampers actuate el'ected. The system design, operetion, and Reactor Protection Instrumentation), the correctly on a simulated automatic ,ebutty to function when required remain

redes.1 assister / vol. sa, No. tas / Wednesday. July 1. tear / Notless sese as delineated in the (3)DivisionIand H emergency core A forheensse ' 36 Conner, unchanged. Additionally,d change will not justinostion, the propose coollas systeens surveillanos tests.De Jr., Esq and W 1747 affect the perfonnanos mquirements in the licensee stated the following togard to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington. Limiting Conditions of Opereuen contained the three standards: DC 3000s in theTechnicalSpecificadon.Thus es

a. No seguina==t inorosse in the probability NRCprojsetDirector: Jose iCalvo margin of safety is not impacted.

or the osasequeness of an socident (2) Extension of the intewal for y aduswd resulu from this change Gulf stems Utgities Company. Docket perform the main steamline No. 88,45, River Band Staties. Unit 1 use: radiation-channel calibrations and Previous testing recently conduct $d at this West Felidans Parish,Imaisissa logic syrtem functional tests.De facility during the preoperational test Date of amendment mquest: May 15, licensee stated the following with regard and during the power namension test se to the three standards-d*****1*d indePth, the reliabuity and 1987. ne propaged.f amendment toqueste

a. No significant increase in the probability perfonnance capability of the BCCS systems Description o or the consequences of an accident during various initiating modes of a LOP /

.nAmant would revise LOCA motJn addluon an awesive the Technical Specifications (Ills) to kreviously evaluated results from this change surveillance program exists at this plant to exknd &e seneillance inkrvals, e a g. ne system deelen, function and demmtrate aondand pers and g ECCS uird g one-time basia. until the refueling outage c ngareum am not danced w affwted. Ethee the occurrence of such anNent. Du scheduled to begin on September 15,. ch e ift.This willide tify ny dnft to the nuability proven by the previous 1987. for the reactor vessel steam dome or degradation of the system. Divt associated taung and se comunued prmn operabWty pmssum4igh mecW pmkcha mkin with the detector would be insignificant obtained by fragoent ongoing summance instmmentatim and isolation actuatie tes extensim d ea ts mee m instrumentation, the snain steaan line when compared to the radiation levels associated with a failed fuel event.De sum' wm not emMn a signincant flow-high betrument loops, the primary in bWty w casegwam logarithmic radiation monitor, which is the containment, secondary containawnt. g j g, primary source of drift will continue to b.his change would not crests the and reactor water r*leanup level 2 and mcein the curnom day summence poulbili of a new or different kind of main steam lica level, isolation $U" 8' accident any accident previously actuation instruments' ion, and the rv b I evaluated because: automatic deptesourization system instrumentation, the loop remains fully Die change aHows a une nMeion in (ADS) trip systeta reactor vessel wster operable and responds with the necessary accuracy to detect etish radiation and initiate (Q*I

• Ck gg, level-low level 3 and the mactor core
• II an isolation actuation. Dere is no significant extension therefore, does not introduce a new isolation culing @@ mtem mactw incre"e for the probability of failure of the mode of operation. Sinos no new or different water level-high level 4 actuation testeu components with the change to ths kMds Mucidenu are btrodued by instrumentation. %e proposed surveillance interval. Dere is no increase in extending the surveillance interval then the

. amendment would modify the 'llis as the probability or consequences of an possibility of creating an accident not follows: accident previously evaluated because the PNYiN8Iy #alusud don not exist. (g) 11is 4.3.11 Table 411.11,4.3.21 system will continue to respond as designed. h,,,. be of sdety extend the interval for channel and Table 4J111 would be modified to b.nis change would not creste the c possibility of a new or different kind of g accident from any accident previously ne demonstrated reliability caused by calibration and logic system functional paluskd because: The design response of the instrumentation recently conducted testing during the start.up test for the reactor vessel steam dome phase of this plant, as wou as extensive pressurs high reactor protection and the system remains the same and is ongoing survedlance testing designed to instrumentation and the reactor vessel ffe[ change e d n the daign determine operability and to measure pressure-high isolation actuation u instrumentation therefore, previously h main i t the analysis and evaluations remain valid. No effects that would be caused if a LOP /IDCA tests am cuantly to be pwfwmed event occurred. In addition. recent changes every 18 months.his one-time endo is taken im the M instrumentation in any design basis FSAR made to the plants protective tonal trip extension request is for approximately analysis. system resulting from the lanuary 19861DP 31 days until the forthcoming refueling

c. This change would not involve a event. has reduced significantly the outage.

significant reduction in the margin of safety possibility of a similar event happening (2)TS 4.312 and Table 4.3111 would

• 8*
• d
• be modified to extend the channel unctionalres'ponse of the system will liminnsI con m in ains remain as designed during the extended probability of las than one tenth of one calibration and logic system functional surveillance period because of the redundant percent chance of occurring over the 40 year test surveillance intervals for the main design and the reliability of the components.

cycle of this plant. Laak detection systems steam line flow-high instrument loops. As discuned in the justification above. the and ISI inspection programs exist to detect These surveillance tests am cunently to detectors have been found to not drift a . and prevent pipe and vessel failures which be performed every 18 months. his one-significant amount during this extended could allow a LDCA event to occur. time extension request is for surveillance period and will continue to Exten ' the performance date of the 13 approximately 24 days (from A t 21, receive functional twting each month of month surveillance until after operation. A review of the equipment design, commencement of refueling would therefore. 1987) until the fwthcogning mfue ' FSAR and SER cononitments, and system not impose a measursble reduction in the outage. performance requirements has confirmed the margin of safety. (3) TS 412.2 and Table 4.3111 would surveillance extension is within the %e staff has reviewed the licensee's be modified to extend the interval for component capability and does not conflict no signliicant har.ards consideration channel calibration and logic system with present systeta requirements. Since the determination and agrees with the functional testing for the primary design and performance is not sensitive t

analysis, containment. secondary containment, syst r 11 re in a da Loco / Ptiblic Documenf Room and reactor water cleanup level 2 and described in the safety analysis report the Locofion Government Documente main steam line level t isolation margin of ufety has not been significantly Department, louisiana State University, actuation instrumentation.%ese reduced.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70003 surveillance tests are currently to be 4

24554 Fedusal Registes / Vol 52, No.126 / Wedneedry I Jy 1,19s7 / Notices e perfoerned every 18 months. This one. desism and operumma of the heeremensmeton incrossed calibmtion interval does not effect time extension roguast is for and the system renames ihr seems, theefsen, curwnt instrument setpointe due to existing approximately 36 days (froma August is, Previous analysia and evebatamme renais design margin. N system wi!! continue to vahd. 1985) until the forthcoming refushas function wnhin se existing design bases and e is change would met Ismaine a analysis. Da change in LSM surwulance oute8' significant'=M= la the margia of aalsey interval la supported by successful operation (4) TSe 4.3.3.2. Tahle 4.3.3.1 1. 4.3.5.2 because: of the instrumentation during startup testing Table 4.3.5.11, and 4.5.1 would be Perfonnance of the system and the and initial operation. In addition. NyftDS modified to extend the ADS trip system componente remain consistema enth the reports no manuel switch falleros and e rsactor vessel water level-low level 3, tv------ts of the Technical Ar-tae=tions hmlF of 333.273 hours for auxihary reisyst and RCIC system reactor vessel water and FSAE. Current netpoians aHow for then, showng high rehabatty. level-high level a actuation charmel dnft of up to 1s png. m e-w -*-d b.nis change would not creene time Ntrumentation surveillance frequency. dnh includag ein exwnsion is tu peig. possibility of a new or different kind of Therefore there in no change to the anowebb accident from any occadant r-i .hese surveillance tests are currently to '*I"'"'"~" trip setpmat and the margin evalented because: be performed every 18 months. This one-of safetyis not reduced nere is no change to system configuratens tirne extension request is for (2) Channel calibration and logic cc anal sie, h change is surveillance approximately 21 days (from August 25. system inen=1 (LSFT) test intervefdoes not create any new types of 1987) until the forthcoming refuehog surveillen::e interval extension for the

acedents, outage.

main steam line flow-high instrmnent c.nis change would not involve a Bosis forpmposedno significant loops. With regard to the three alpificant reduction in the margin of safety becem hazanis consideration deterstination: standarda, the licensee stated: The Commission has provided

e. No significant increams in the probahuity

• • '"C*********Id"'

standards for determining whether a or the consequences of an accident not impact instument utpomes.De "d

• I"'

significant hasarda consideration exists ously evaluated resulta from tm changs "jd *g,*,*, amen ont o license o n ting Taanical Specification Taip f, tod nd ow e facility involves no significant hszards tP,o ,d incinding tWe extension is 3.7s inchse. There consideration if operation of the facihty 6 a he daw cahbmuon inwrveL le no changa in analytical WmW esed in any In accordance with the propcaed Furbrmm. ea incremad IXI* sur veiHanas anahsia. Delay in the logic system functional l amendment would not:(1) involve a interval results in no significant probability of l'et does not sipincantly effect the significant increase in the proLabihty or an MSIV isolation logic failure. probabuity of system faun Thefon. this consequences of an accident previously b.nis change would not cresta the change does not significantly reduce the evaluated: or (2) create the possibility of Possibility of a new or different kind of marge of safety, a new or different kind of accident from accident from any accident previously (4) Extension of the surveillance evaluated because frequency for the ADS trip system any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant redtaction in a This change does not delete or reduos the reactor vessel water level-low leve! 3. fWtim! cePabdity of the MSL Flow 4tish and RCIC system reactor vessel water margin of safety.The Umnaee addressed kind d the above three standants in the fe'cNea*n re u level high level a With regard to the sch n e g, thm standards, the hcensee W amendment application. response to an event wul be as analysed, (1) Reactor vessel steam dome c.nia change would not involve a

a. No significant increase in tbs probability athe a

pressure-high reactor protection significant reduction in the margin of safety [~ instrumentation and reactor vessel because. tmneat setpois is changednor l pressure-high isolation actuation [gCh*"8*, g requesed danse w b sureduanor instrumentation surveillance extension. Interval has besa ined to be within the With regard to the three standarda, the ha a aban'c preemnt design vales for the,setpoint drift and pnd of licensee stated; calculawd dr@ Iw a 30 mene @ momehe wul remain witlan technica spm:sficetion

a. No sigruficant increase in the probabikty plus twenty-Sve percent) sue, n allowable vatsas for &e mquased extenna or the consequences of an accident interval is ut poid. hmen, b cak:elawd h change is also found to have no previously evaluated ruults from this change drift is went withm b allowance for drift as significant effed os se syme logic fonctie because:

usumed in b analyma.N inunt d he beceses of the system design and reliability W system design, fun. -ction and Techc=1 Specincetion base is met haem =ma of the components. In addition. NPRDS d configuretie are not changed.N requested no significant reduction in the nemens of NPerm abow he M and auxiliary mleys to { extension may result in greater tr== netter ufety or e5ectroenmes of b HEE Fkrw-Mgk be highly roueble and not sensitive to test dnft. This dnft has been calculated to be 12.7 instrumentation in mitigeung the laterval. Derefore. there is no charige to the poig. h dnft uand in the FSAR analysis in 15 consequences af an MSL break outside curent safety analysis mqisind. I psig. Channel function is assused by contaimnent is tavolved. tm This change would not creets the surveillance of channel instruments. nis (3) Channal calibration andlogic Pmib6tay of a new w dr5 mat Hnd # request will not result in any change in systerr. functional testing survetHanee accident from any accident previously setpoints, allowable vetoe or PSAR analysis, evaluated because: In addition, a NPRDS search indicated a very extension for the primary containment, g g,3,,,,,,g, g,,,c,,,,,,3,,,g low probability for equipment feilures with secondary containment, and reactor testrementation swveillence interval does regard to manual switches and auxiliary weter cleanup level 2 and main steam not incrosse the poestbility of an occident or relays. Since there is no change la te loop's line level 1 leolation actuation a smalfenetion of a different type then operation, or setpoints em is ne sigmAcant instrumentation. With regard to the previously evaleeted since there is no change increase in the probability er consequence of three standards, the licensee sieted: u function or bordware. previously evaluated accadents.

a. No sagnahcant increase in the psababakty

c. nie ebenge would not involve a

b. This change would not create the or the consequences of an accident signincent reduction in the margin of safety j

possibihty of a new or different kind of previously evalmated results from this change because-accident from any accident previously because: ne change in this reactor vesset water j evaluated becesse-It will not reeutt tn a significant reduction levelinstrumentation survefHence interva! nis request will not result he new modes la system reflebiitty nor effect thee ability of does not trrvolve e reduction in the margin of or configurations of plast operations.The the system to perform its design finmetton. no safety since the instruments setpoints and

l l h j. raderal nasister / vol. as, No.138 / Wedosaday, July 1, tear / Nations 34555 ' allowable values em not changed and the quali8 cation of the SNPS TDI for analyses perfonned by General calculated drtfie are we5 within the suelear standby servies, as byGDC 'c. b to sepleos exiadas alloweble values. Stace the change maintains 17 of Appendix A to to CPR Part 30.Tuo RBM setpoints t were determined the present safety analysia. Geore is no incorporetles of the most arttieel periodic hem a analysis. Table 8.3-8 et ' significant reduction to the margin of solsty, anslatenesse/sureoGlamos laspections for The staff has reviewed the licensee's certain phase I assime compensets as liessee, the T Speci8cedens wonW be no significant hasards consideration conditions will ensure manussed rehabelly .changedio reflect the new RBM Upecale, e determination and marees with the and operability of these units over the his el Setpoints,h minimum critical power analysis the plant. %mme proposed boense osodinens totio (MCPR) would be changed in the LocalheblicDocenentRoom do nounwin any changa la he system's associated bases. $*fg,,*,"$ possibility of an eccident that is$,,; heeards co Th& Basisforp nedno significant Location: Government Documents han determinabant Department. Louislaon F4 ate University. (2) create Baton Rouge. Lou'. dant 7tA03 different than already evaluated in the The Commission has provided A tiorneyfor licensee: Troy B. Conner. USAR.h proposed hoense conditions standards for determining whether a Jr Esq., Conner and Wetterhahn,1747 involw maine====e= and serv.ma== signillcant hasards consideration exists Pennsylvania Avenue.NW, Washington, activities for critical engine components is (to CFR 50.92(c}). A proposed DC 20006 order to ensare proper and sale operation of' amendment to an operating license for a NBC Project Director: Jose A.Calvo the ep and maintain the adequacy and. facility involves no significant hazards n n d se fac% g"8["g Q proposed long Island Ushting Company, Dodet condition No. 50-322. Shorebaus Nucieer Power amendments do not a5ect any plant Station. Suffolk Canty, New York conditions or parameters nor do they alter amendment would not:(1) involve a the system des and operability significant increase in the probability or Date of amendment request: April M. requirements. ore, the possibility of a consequences of an accident previously 1987 new or different kind of socident from any evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of Description of amendment request accident previously evduated cannot be a new or different kind of accident from hse proposed changes consist of crea ted. (3) involn a significant reduedon in any accident previously evaluated; or (3) modifications of certain emergency the margin of safety as defind in the baan involve a significant reduction in a diesel generator license conditions as to Technical Specifications 3/4A. All required m d edety ins mapounu described in attachment 3 to the e licensee has evaluated the Operating License NPF-36. Thee beense conditions meet or em those proposed RBM setpoint changes and has changes allow the licensee to implement a.,' by the wndor and the UM concluded that no significant hazards the staff's requirements which establish EDG Owner's Group DR/QR program, nose consideration exists because of the the basis for the continued qualification, inspections do not alter the functional safety foHowing masons' relMbility and operability of the 'IDI requirements of the emergency diesel engines over the entire life of the plant generators, thus there is no impact on the General Electnc has pedormed an and involve detailed maintenance and ruults and conclusions of the USAR Chapter analysis supporting the proposed surveillance activities for critical engine is analyses and no inipact on the mangia d setpoints for an inidal MCPR d 1.3a components, Tbese pmpowd Iicense eafety. Also, a!! requirements of the existing This analysis used the same license conditions as imposed by the NRC are methodology used to calculate the change,s incorporate all of the 'IDI maintained until startup from the first existing setpointa. N only change is a Owner s Group or Pacific Northwest refuehng outage. Furthermore, all propoud different value of initial MCPR-1.30 Laboratory (pNL) recommendations, new license conditions for poet first bt which wete reviewed and appmved by cycle have been reviewed and apprmed t>y instead of1.20. Since the current cycle's the Staff in NUREG-1216. the NRC staff and documented in NURI:G lowest allowed MCPR is 1.36 and the Basisforproposedno significant 1216. brefore, the proposed license changes analysis allows setpoints actually hozords considemtion determination do not involve a significant reduction in the slightly higher than those proposed, the The Commission has provided margin d eafety. pmpmed setpoints am consmadve. standards for determining whether a Accordingly, ee Commission hmfore, the pmposed setpoints wiH significant hazards consideration exists proposes to determine that the proposed not involve a significant increase in the ch to the license involve no probability or consequences of any (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed a tcant hazards considerations. accident previously evaluated. amendment to an operating license for a 48C8/Mlic DOCU8*nt A8888 h proposed change in RBM facility involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility location: Shoreham-Wading River Public setpoints wul not create the possibility in accordance with the proposed Library. Route 25A, Shoreham, New of a new or different kind of accident York 117a8 since the change makes relatively minor amendment would not:(1) involve a Attorneyfor icensee:W. Taylor changes to the existing setpoints. significant increase in the probab'lity or I'Y' b 89" N'"I'8 "" Since the proposed setpoints have consequences of an accident previously "d* a 23212 been determined by approved NRC evaluated;(2) create the possibility of a 'g j new or different kind of accident from me odo ogy, ae a wu n t But! any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant ction in the involve a significant reduction in a Nortbers States Power 'a=Taay, margin of safety, r margin of safety. Docket No. gs ass, Monticello Nacisar h staff has reviewed the licensee's N licensee has determined, and the Generetlag Plant, Wright County. evaluation and agrees with their NRC staff agrees, that the proposed hal====as= conclusions. Accordingly, the staff amendment will not Date of amendment tuguest February proposes to determine that the f (1) involve a significant incrosse in the 4,Iggy requested action does not involve s l hv ife e ed.Y heense Description of amendment regueste significant hasards consideration. j conditions as mandsted through the Statre he application for amendmant Localfublic Document Room Final SER (NUREG-121s), establish the basis proposes new Rod Block Monitor (RBM) locot. ion: Minneapolis Public Ubrary, for the continued design adequacy and setpoints as a result of Monticello Technology and Scisace Department.

14556 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No.126 / W:dnesday, July 1.1987 / N:tices { 300 Nicollet Mall. Minneapolis, consequence of any accident previously reasonable amount of time for review by Minnesota 55401. evaluated. For the same reasons, the the licensee's technical staffs and Atrorneyforlicensee Cerald proposed changt s will not create the management, and to identify and correct Charnoff. Esq., Shew. Pittman. Potts and possibility of a new or different kind of errors. Trowbridge,2300 N Street, NW, accident, nor will they involve a 7he current TS 6.9.2.a on page 257 Washington, DC 20037. significant reduction in the margin of

1. equires that a Special Report be NRCProject Director: David L safety.

submitted to the NRC for loss of Wigginton, Acting. Based on the above considerations, shutdown margin. The licensee requests the Commission proposes to determine that the reporting requirement in Northern States Power Com y Docket No. 50-263, Monticel uclear that the proposed changes do not Technical Specification 6.91a be Cenerating Plant, Wright County, involve a significant har.ards deleted since it is redundant, except for e nsideration. Minn" ta the reporting schedule, to the new LER l LocalPublic Document Room Rule The licensee further states that { Date of amendment request: February location: Minneapolis Public Library, loss of shutdown margin is reportable i 18,1987. Technology and Science Department. under the provisions of the LER Ru!e (10 Description of amendment request 300 Nicollet Mall. Minneapolis, CFR 50.73(a)(2)(1)(B)). Consequently, the The proposed changes would clarify the Minnesota 55401,. reporting requirement of Technical { Technical Specification requirements for Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Specification 6.9.2.a is redundant to the IRM and APRM scram matrumentation Charnoff. Esq., Shaw. Pittman. Potts and reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.73. operability by revising Table 3.1.1 to Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW, ehminate the requirement for IRM Washington. DC 20037. Bas 18 forP10Posedno significant hazards consideration determmation: operability while in the Run Mode and NRC Project Director: David L to delete the APRM downscale scram. Wigginton. Acting. The Commission has,provided Table 3.1.1 note 2 would be ch 8ed to standards for determming whether a read: "For an IRM s.hannel to be Philadelphia Electric Company, Public significant hazards consideration exists considered operable, its detector shall Service Electric and Gas Company, as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed be fully inserted." Note c would be Delmarva Power and IJght f%mpany, amendment to an operating license j deleted; and other clarifying changes and Atlantic City Electric Company, hinvolves no significant hazards would be made. Dockets Nos. 50 277 and 50 278, Peac considerations if operation of the facility Basis forproposedno significant Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units in accordance with the proposed bczards consideration determination: Nos. 2 and 3 York County, Pennsylvania amendment would not:(1) involve a The Commission has provided Date of applicationfor amendments significant increase in the probability or standards for determining whether a january 21,1987 consequences of an accident previously significant hazards consideration exists Description of amendment request: ' evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed The proposed amendments would a new or different kind of accident from amendment to an operating license for a change the Technical Specifications any accident previously evaluated or (3) facility involves no significant hazards (TSs) for the Peach Bottom Atomic involve a significant reduction in a considerations if ops Mon of the facility Power Station. Units 2 and 3 by (a) margin of safety, in accordance with a posed providing an extension of 30 days in the The licensee has evaluated the amendment would ' . l involve a current 60 day requirement of TS proposed amendment to TS 6.91h(2) significant increa - the probability or 6.91h(2) on Page 259 for filing the against standards in 10 CFR 50.92 and consequences of a - ident previously Semiannual Effluent Release Report. has determined the following: evaluated; or (2) crea te the possibility of and (b) eliminate a reporting Operation of peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 in a new or different kind of accident from requirement in TS 6.91a on page 257 of accordance with this change would not: any accident previously evaluated; or (3) loss of shutdown margin that is (1) involve a significant increasa in the involve a significant reduction in a redundant to the 1.icensee Event Report probability or consequences of an accident margin of safety. (LER) requirements, previously esaluated because the collection A literalinterpretation of the affected The current TS 6.91h(2) requires that and analysis of routine plant data and the sections now requires placing the plant the Semiannual Effluent Release Report preparation time to transmit the information in a "balf-scram" condition to perform covering the previous six months of to the NRC is independent of plant design required testing and maintenance. This operation shall be submitted within 60 and operational characteristics that can makes the plant more susceptible to days after January 1 and July 1 of each impact potential accidents: spunous trips and initiation of year. The licensee states that the (2) create the possibility of a new or safeguards equipment. extension is appropriate since the different kind of accident from any The proposed changes would clarify amount of time required to complete the @

• ",*{

the intent of the original specification by ' steps in preparing the report is not clearly defining the scram functions sufficient to allow adequate review of establish a potential new accident precursor-(3) involve a significant reduction in the needed to be operable in each mode of the report prior to the 60 day deadline. margin of safety because the additional 30 operation. The allowable bypasses Consequently, the licensee encounters days to submit this routine plant data does assure that the sittgle failure criteria are the need to file followup reports for not impact the health and safety of the public satis'ied for the required scram function corrections and to supplement the since significant increases in radiological of the IRMs and APRMs.These changes original report. The licensee states that effluent releases that may be indicative of an do not invclve modifications of the the additional 30 days to submit the inherent defect in plant design or operation. reactor prouctio system widng or Mmiannual Ef'luent Release Report will are reported promptly under the provision of citedtry thus, by;lesign, overlap shsure that an adequate period of time 10 CFR soJ2 and 10 CFR 5033 and are y a between the IRha and APRhts is i available to send the effluent samples therefore not impacted by this amendment assured. Therefc.re, the requested to e vendor for analysis, receive and reque.st. changes will not involve a significant review the data and prepare a complete The licensee has evaluated the increase in the probability or report. Additionally, this will provide a proposed amendment to TS 6.91a

redusel assmer / vol. as, No.1se / Wednesday, July 1. MEP / Netze

• 34357 gainst die standards in to CPR 88.5 standesde set fosthin19 GR 303 by change to achieve eensistency and has determined the following:

certain of(an31 PR Frei), throughout the tochaloal speelRcetons, Operettaa of Penob Bottom Unles a and 8 la One of examples,( correction atan error.1sr a change in assnisses with this obense would not aman,imaallikely to inv ve ne nomenetetwo"he propeeed. involve a significant incrones in the significant hasards consideration asistes amendment as diocessed aboes relates or usness of an assident to A abaaps that constitutes as to this skample boosuse.it only changes i ,M, bmun but addithmal limitation, restriottoa, er die sostion members. mordy iminates a at reporttag control not presently inoleded in the hfefore, Gus ammission proposes r aquinment for toes of Bhatdown heerstm technical specifications, e.g., a more to determine anet the proposed (2) create the possibility of a new or stringent surveiBance requirement." b. amendment invelees no significant dmerent kind of accident from any proposed amendment relates to this hazards considerations. previously analyzed because reportins example because it would impose more LocalPubhc Document Roorn requireswete do not establish a potent 6al new restrictive limits on the allowed MCPR location: Pennsville Public libmr/.190 S. 8Pmcuno for any value of tau above teu equal to Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey 0e070 d zem. margin of safety because the current Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, e, porting requirements in to CFR 80.72 and to kmfme, the mumm,on pmposes }r Esquire, Comwr and Wetterhahn. r CFR so.n covers all events. Including toes of to determine that the proposed 2737 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, shutdown Merg:n. that may impact the amendment involves no significant Washington, DC 20006 margin of safety. and require the NRC to be hazards considerations. NRCpm/ect Director: Walter R. acutwd. Localpublic Document Room Butl Based on the above reasoning, the location! Pennsd!!e Public library,190 S. licensee has determined that the Broadway, Pennsville. New Jersey 0807e Public Service Eladuic & Gas C-sg asy, proposed amendment does not involve a Attorneyfor licensee: Troy B. Canner. Docket No. Es454, Hope Cseek significant hazards consideration.W Jr Esquire Conner and Wetterbahn, C --

Station, Seism Coasty, New NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, _

Jersey so significant hazards consideration Washington. DC 20008 determination and agrees with the NRC project Director: Walter R. Date ofamendmant requeet:May 22, ggg7 licensee's analysis. Based on this Butler Posa t Description of amendment request-de r in th the et Public Servios FlarMr & Gas a pany, %e amendment would modify the r amendment does not volve a Docket No. 88454, Hope Crook Technical Specifications to permit significant hazards consideration. Generating Station, Salem County, New temporary adjustment of the setpoints LocalPublicDocument Room Jersey for the Main Steam Une Radiation-High. location: Government Publications Date of amendment request May 1. High trip function.b change would Section. State 1.ibrary of Pennsylvania, iss7 permit the normal full power Education Building. Commonwealth and Description of amendment requeet: -,m.od radiation level assocasled Walnut Streets. Hamsburg, The proposed amendment would revise with the Main Steam Une Radiation Pennsylvania 1712e the numbering of cunent Technical scram and isolation setpoints to be A ttorneyfor Licensee: Troy B. Conner, Specification Sections 3.7.8 through increased during hydrogen injection Jr.,1747 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW. 3.7.10 and of Tables 3.7.91 and 3.7.10-1 testing.b purpose of the hydrogen Washington. DC 20006 by renumbering them Sections 3.7.9 injection test is to determina the NRCProject Director: Walter R. through 3.7.11 and Tables 3.7.101 and feasibility of hydrogen water chemistry Butler 3.7.11-1 respectively. In addition, the control as a means of seducing section numbers referenced in the text intergranular stmse corvosion crecidag Public Servios Electric & Gas Compesy, Docket No. ss454 Hope Cnek of these sections and in the text of (IGSCC) of stainless steel piping. & Generating Station, Salem County, New Section n.2.6 will be changed to setpoint increases are needed to I'"'Y correspond with the appropriate new - compensate for anticipated increases in section numbers. Noe numbering the main steam line radiation level Date of amendment request April 30, changes are proposed in order that the during hydrogen injection. b 1987 Technical Specification section numbers background radiation level increase Description of amendment request will be consistent with the numbers during hydrogen injection is caused by The amendment would modify referenced in the Hope Creek higher levels of short half-life N 16 Technical Specification Figure 3.2.3.1 to Generating Station procedures. A new carry over into the steam line. increase the minimum critical power Section 3.7.a will be added which will be h proposed modification would ratio (MCPR) versus tau at rated flow, blank except for a note to indicate that allow this temporary adjustment to the The current Technical Specification the purpose of the section is to maintain setpoints to be made only when above provides a single MCPR limit of1.20 for numerical continuity of the se, tion 22 percent of rated power and would all values of tau from 0 to 1.0 at rated numbers. require that it be made within M hours flow. The proposed change would Boeis forpropcsedno significorrt prior to planned start of hydrogen increase the MCPR linearly from a limit hazottie considemtion determination injection. it would also require that of 1.20 for tau equal to zero to a limit o' The Commission has provided guidance normal setpoints be established within 1.23 for tau equal to 1.0. This change to concerning the appbcation of its 24 hours of reestablishing normel increase the MCPR limit is in the standards set forth in to CFR 50.92 by redistion levels after completion of the conservative direction and is more pmviding antain examples (51 PR 7744). hydrogen injection and to restrictive than the current limit. One of the examples,(i), of an establishing pewer lav below 22 Basis forproposedno significant amendment kkely to involve no percent rated peewar. Aczords considemtion determination sigmlficant hasards ceneideration se'etes. A susalar abange was appsowed for The Conumesion has provided guidamos to "A purely administrative change (o the purpose of hydrogen injecten tests concerning the application of its technical specificationeder enemple, a at the Edwis IMetch Maclear Mant, Unit

24558 Fed;ral Regist:r / Vol. 52, No.126 / Wednesday, July 1,1987 / Notices 1 by Amendment No.125 to the Hatch functions. ne proposed changes do permit 1747 pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 1; cense, dated May 21,1986. the performance of a hydrogen injection test; Washington, DC 20006 Basis forproposedno significant however. this tut does not introduce a new h tzards considention determination: k t"d *' * **'d * *'

• L"** 'b * *'***"** *'

NRCProject Director: Walter R. The Commission has provided hydrogen in the primary system has already W been analynd (see FSAR Section 6 2.5.10.4.2 Fublic Service Electric at Gas Compacy' standards for detertpining whether a and 11.3.2.11 and is already monitored and significant hazards comideration exista controlled (see TS 3/4.3.7.10 and 3/4.11.2 6, Docket No. 50 272, Salem Nuclear (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed respectively). Further, as discussed in Generating Station, Unit No.1, Salem emendment to an operating license for t. Paragraph V above, additional protective County, New Jersey facility involves no significant haza tis measures are being applied which assure tiist consideration if operation of the facility the physical presence of test equipment does Doce of amendment request: October in accordance with the propo, sed not create the potential for a different kind of accident to occur. Description of amendment mquest amendment would not:(1) involve a Since the TS changes themselves do not The proposed change would revise significant increase in the probability or affect existing system function, nor do they Technical Specification 4.2.2.2.e and consequences of an accident previously create a situatmn which has not been Basis 3/4.2.2.The change replaces the evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of previously analyzed and appropriately a new or different kind of accident from designed for, the change to the TS footnotes F, limits with statements referring to the Radial Peaking Factor Limit Report, any accident previously evaluated; or (3) y[(('3M*thanpre obyeva$ust involve a signiScant reduction in a

i. which provides for a cycle-by-cycle (c) Does not involve a significant reduction determination of the F. (Z) limits marpn,of safety.

in a margin of safety. The proposed without the need to submit F. Technical The bcensee provided the followm.8 temporary increase in the Main Steam Line Specification changes. The F, limit is a evaluation with its May 22,1987 Radiation High - High scram and isolation review criterion which is used to verify amendment request: setpoints will be permissible only when that the design neutronic calculations The proposed changes to the HCGS reactor thermal power is above 22 percent. Techrucal Specifications: As discuped in Paragraph VI.a above, the associated with the Reload Safety (al Do not involve a significant increase in only design basis accident which takes credit F. valuation are conservative.The Radial the probabibty or consequences of an for this scram and isolation trip function is reaking Factor Limit Report allows for accident previously evaluated. The only the CRDA. However, above ao percent cycle-by-cycle changes in the F, limit. design basis accident which takes credit for power, the consequences of a CRDA are so which reflect the variations to be the main steam bne high radiation scram and mimmal that they may be considered expected based on the design isolation setpoint is the Control Rod Drop neghgible (Ref.1}. and hence, the change in calculations. Accident (CRDA) as described in F3AR the TS setpoints sas no significant efrect on Section 15 4.9. Specificauy, the Main Steam the margins of safety for this accident A similar change request for Unit 2 Isolation Valves (MSIVs) are assumed to was submitted as LCR 83-02, dated scenano. receive an LCR automatic closure signal at The proposed change is necepary to January 31,1983, and was approved by 03 seconds after detection of high radiation conduct a hydrogen injection test which will the Commission in Amendment 19, in the main steam lines and to be fuUy closed increase the carry over of N 16. His in turn, dated May 5,1983. The proposed change at 5 seconds from the recetpt of the closure will cause the background radiation levels in tankes the Unit i specification identical signal. De main steam line radiation the main steam system to be increased. As to that of Unit 2, and brings it into monitors are provided to detect a se discuped in Paragraph IV above, several failure of the fuel claddmg. When gh precautionary and preplanning measures are conformance with the Westinghouse radiation is detected, a trip is initieted to being taken to maintain plant personnel Standard Technical Sp*cifications reduce the continued failure of fuel cladding. exposures ALARA. !n addition, radiation (NUREG 0452, Revision 4). { At the same tune. the main steam isolation levels wn! be monitored to assure measured Basis forproposedno significant valves are closed to limit the release of radiation levels are within acceptable site hazards considerofion determination: Ossion products. ne trip setting is high ALARA. Due to the relatively short half-lif* The licensee provided the following enough above background radiation levels to of N 16 (approximately 7 seconds), gaseous significant hazards evaluation per 10 prevent spunous tnpa et low enough to effluent release rates wiU not be significantly CFR 50 92 prociptly detect groes suures in the fuel affected. Therefore, it can be concluded that claddmg. the proposed change will not present a risk to g Py g g g g, g,j As indicated in the NEDO Report the public health and safe nor signiBeantly Specifications is administrative in nature in (Reference 1). the consequences of the CRDA reduce a margin of safety or plant personnel that it is being made to achieve consistency are most severe under Hot Standby Based upon the discussions in the above to a previously approved change.ne change conditions. In fact, the consequences of the three subparagraphs, PSE&G concludes that does not involve a significant hazards CRDA are increasingly less severe above 10 the proposed change does not involve a consideration because operation in percent due to a faster Doppler response and significant:y safety hazard. accordance with this change would not: a lower rodworth. Most importantly, above 20 Reference 1 referred to above by the (1) Involve a sigmficant increase in the percent power, the consequences of the CRDA are minimal. Since the Main Steam . licensee is NEDO-10527. Supplement 1, probability or consequences of an accident Line Radiation Monitor setpoint will only be . General Electric Rod Drop Accident previously evaluated. ne charp involva adjusted for the purposes of the hydrogen Analysis for Large Boiling Water only the survelHance oU. as a verification injection test at power levels above 22 " dated Jul 1972-of the design models and only changes the Y method of documenting F limita. percent. there is no significant impact on the The staff agrees with the b.censees probabihty or consequences of the CRDA. evaluation and conclusion as stated (2) Create the possibility of a new or Therefore, the change to the footnotes in the above. Accordingly, the staff proposes different kind of accident from any previously enrJyzed.There are no equipment, referenced TS tables have no affect on the to detettnine that the requested probabihty or consequences of an accident amendment does not involve a instrument, or setpoint changes related to the previously evaluated. proposed change to Technical Specifications. significant hazards consideration. (3) Involve a significant reduction in a Nn m margin of safety. ne acNal margin of safety or d ff tkin acci en any accident previously evaluated.The proposed location Pennsville Public library,190 S. as defined in the basis for the r technical e changes do not affect the design of any Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey 00070 specification remains unchanged since tb re oefety-related systems and as such do not Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, limit is unchanged. ne redial peaking factor affect the performance of any sefety Jr Esquire. Conner and Wetterbahn, F.,(r)is meuured periodicany to provide

i Federal Register / Vol. 52. No.126 / Wednesday. July 1.1987 / Notices. 24559 l soeurenes that the het channel factor Fe(s) agreement. As such, the proposed No. b contalrunent spray (CS) system Is remains within its limit-amendment would not:(1) involve a part of the Containment Heat Removal The Commission has provided significant increase in the probability or system.h primary design of the guidance concerning the application of consequence of an accident previously Containment Heat Removal Spray Systems is the standards for determining whether a evaluated: or (2) create the probability to rprey coldwster into the containment j significant hazards consideration exists of a new or different kind of accident atmosphere when appropriate in the event of j (51 FR 7744, dated March 6,1986). The from any accident previously evaluated: themQof coolant accident (IDCA) a a! j y ensum that containment panum proposed change corresponds to or (3) involve a significant reduction in a d " " ' '****d Ih' " "'*I""'"' *h*II dI " 8 Example (i) for purely administrative ma'8 n of safety. Therefore, the pnesum of12 psir, Temperature and i changes to achieve consistency. proposed amendment does not prusure transients shown in the Final Safety Therefore, on the basis of the constitute a significant hazards Analysis Report (FSAR) for the worst case licensee's evaluation, with which we consideration. I.OCA remain relatively constant until agree, and because the proposed change Accordingly, on the basis of the switchover to sump recirculation. At this corresponds to Example (i), noted licensee's analysis, with which we point, containment temperature drops sharply above, the Commission proposes to agree, and because the circumstances because the cold air exiting the ice condenser determine that the amendment does not seem to fit Example (i) above, the is no longer being warmed by the spray involve a significant hazards Commission proposes to determine that water.The temperature recovers and consideration. the amendment will not involve a stabilizes at the outlet temperature of the Loco /Public Document Room significant hazards consideration. spray heat exchangers once the spray pumps location: Salem Free Public library, n2 Localpublic Document Room have been restarted.The temperatum West Broadwsy. Salem, New Jersey location: Salem Free Public library, n2 incnases further after ice bed meltout, but i 08079 West Broadway, Salem. New Jersey mmains within design limita. Substantial Attorneyforlicensee: Mark J. margin still exists between the time sump j 08079 recirculation begins and ice bed meltout Wetterhahn. Esq' tire, Conner and Attorneyforlicensee: Mark J. occunAnying actuauon of CS to 208 Wetterhahn. Suite 1050,1747 Wetterhahn. Esquire Conner and "' "d* # " '" '"# ' #** * # pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, Wetterhahn. Suite 1050,1747 N Project Director: Walter R. h'C ^ 8' 'l * * 'd " th' Butler NRC Project Director Walter R. (21 to the possibility for on accident of a Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Butler new or dilfemnt type than evaluated Docket No. 50-272, Salem Nuclear Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Pmvlously in the safety analysis mport Generating Station, Unit No.1. Salem Nos. 50 30 and 50-328, Sequoyah 8" d? County, New Jersey Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. Hamilton No.The proposed change makes a minor d ty aba p$viy $np Date of amendment request: April 20. County. Tennessee in '987 Date of amendment requests: being made is the system response time. The Description of amendment request: December 17,1986 (TS 76) eval stion of the proposed delay for CS The proposed change requests Description of amendment requests; actuation concludes that system operation modification of Facility Operating Tennessee Valley Authority proposes to and performance will be as presently License DPR-70 to incorporate expected in maintaining containment (the Facility Attachment modify the Sequob'ah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Tec ical Specifications to pressure arid temperature design bmits. No.13 dated October 1,1986 to the US/ (3N3 the margin for safety significantly revise the containment spray response mduced7 1AEA Safeguards Agreement) along with Safety Features Response Times..neered time, item 7.s of Table 3.3 5. 'En8i No.The evaluation of the proposed delay clarifications as identified in The for CS actuation concludes that containment (Salem Nuclear amendments would change the pressure mitigation will remain within the Generating Station. Unit 1 (SNC S1) e ntainment spray response time, for safety limits. *Ite delay for CS actuation will IAEA Safeguards License Conditions-d.esel generator loading, from 58 also delay the time before switchover to Revise,d) into the license. seconds to 200 seconds.This notice containment sump recirculation occurs. Basis forproposedno significant supersedes a previous notice da ted However, adequate safety margin still exists e ary u. 87 (52 FR 42$ Wn Wah hw acwadon and ice e i ensee as eterm e at Basss forproposedno significant depletion. proposed change involves no signif.icant hazar6 consideration determination The staff has reviewed the licensee's hazards consideration under the The Commission has provided no significant hazards consideration provisions of 10 CFR Part 50.92. Based standards for determining whether a determination and agrees with the on the licensee s evaluation, we significant hazards determination exists licensee's analysis.Therefore, the staff conclude that the proposed charige is as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c).10 CFR proposes to determine that the administradve in nature and as such 50.91 requires at the time a licensee application for amendment involves no conforms to Example (i) of (51 FR 7744). requests an amendment, it must provide significant hazards consideration. The proposed amendment implements to the Commission its malyses using the LocalPublic Document Room an IAEA Safeguards inspection program standards in Section 50.92, about the location: Chattanooga Hamilton County and does not in any way affect t e issue of no significant hazards Library,1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga. design bases or operation o the ity. consideration. Therefore, in accordance Tennessee 37402' The purpose of the IAEA safeguards with to CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 50.92, the Attorneyforlicensee General inspection is to permit the IAEA to Eerformed and provided the Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority, verify that special fissionable material {j 400 West Summit Hill Drive En B33, at the facility is not withdrawn (except pg,h,'pMj 'ffjfy of on occyfmac,,, Kn xville, Tennessee 37902. as provided m the US/LAEA Safeguards the consequences of an occident previously Agreement) from the facility while such evoluoted in the safety analysis report NRCAssistantDirector:}ohn A. materialis being safeguarded under the significantlyincreasedt . Zwolinski

l 24560 Fed:r:1 Regist:r / Vol. 52. No.128 / Wednesday, July 1,1967 / Notices Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket accident from any occident previously %e Commission has provided l Nos. 50 327 and 56 318, Sequoyah evaluated? No. The proposed amendment is standards for determining whether a Nuclear Plant. Units 1 and 2, Hamilton not a result of changes in plant hardware, nor significant hazards determination exists Coung Tenneuee ,,'i p,j,y,p, 7,,,"cy(perating as stated in to CFR 50.92(c).10 CFR I C Date of omendment requests: April 14, instructions for the plant. Thus, the proposed 50.91 mquires at the time a licensee 1987 (Tb 87 02) technical specification change does not requests an amendment,it must provide Description of amendment requests enste the pasibility of a new or different to the Commission its analyses, using Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) kind of accident from any accident previously the standards in Section 50.92, about the "'I"* issce of no significant hazards proposed to modify the Sequoyah (21 es thepmp sedmendentinvoln, consideration. Therefore, in accordance Nuclear Plant'(Units 1 and 2 Technical e prfp Nn'"! ment bets ay with 10 CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 50.92. the fl Specifications TS) to delete the functional test surveillance requirement clanfies a surveillance requirement for licensee has performed and provided the (SR) 4.3.3.9 for testing automatic hardware currently installed in the plant, following analysts. Isolation of the release pathway from thereby elimmating pouible confusion with (1)ls the probabihty of an occurrence or the steam generator blowdown (R-90-120 perfornas that surveillance requirement. The the consequences of on accidentprenously and R 90-121) and condensate proposed technical specification, therefore, evaluated in the safety analysis report d es n t iny lve a significant reducti a in a sigraficantly incre sed? No. ne intent of deminera1irer (R-90 225) liquid effluent ma in of safety. Regulatory Guide (RC) 1.108. '%ermal radiation monitors due to instrument T e staff has reviewed the licensee's Overload Protection for Electric Motors on downscale failure. Also proposed is the no significant hazards consideration Motor Operated valves."is to ensun that the addition of a functional test to SR 4.3.3.9 determination and agrees with the motor-operated valve (MOV) perfonns its to demonstrate that a control room inunded functi n under accident conditions licensee's analysis.Therefore, the staff alarm annunciation result's should these and that some pr tecti n against MOV proposes to determine that the degradation is provided during normal instruments incur downscale failure. The radiation monitors in question application for amendments in,volves no operations. f.s stated in Regulatory osition l p significant hazards consideration-1.a. continuously bypassing the thermal were neither designed norintended to Loca/ Public Document Room overload (TOL) device is an acceptable itutiate an automatic isolation of the ocad n hauanooga. Hamilton County method of ensuring that the MOV performs release pathway from an instrument 1.ibrary,1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, its safety function;MOV degradation can be l downscale failure. Automatic ir )lation Tennessee 37402. detected through tne use of Motor-Operated or the rejease pagway and control room Attorneyforlicenree: General valve Analysis and Testing System alarm annunciation. is required, and the Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 0.tOVATS) and the preventive maintenance TS remain unchanged. for an indication 400 West Summit Hill Drive, E11 B33, (pM) pmgrams under development. of measured levels above the alarm / trip Knoxville Tennessee 37902. MOVATS. PMs. and ASME Section X] testing l setpoint or a circuit failure. The NRC Assistant Directort John A. wm ensun that the probabihty of MOV ] proposed change only affects the Zwolinski I'd"'** (". He intent of RG 1.106 is satisfie I ' " P'*' *I"Ib" ' inenased requirement for automatic isolation of the releata pathway due to an Tennessee Valley Authority. Docket MOVATS testing is sigmficantly more instrument downscale failure. Control Nos. 50 327 and 50428, Sequoyah reliable as a tool for detecting MOV room annunication remains a Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Hamilton degradation than are TOL devices. ne requirement, as proposed, for an County, Tennessee f,,*[yyygthe ts Qd vie,, g, j 'de to n the g, instrument downscale failure. Date of amendment requests: May 15, such, there is a decrease in the probabihty of f Basis forproposedno significant 1987, as supplemented June 16,1987 (TS sec4 or the consequences of an j torards considerotton determination: 87 2g) sccident previousiy evaluated in the safety 1 The Commission has provided Description of amendment requests analysis mport becaun of the increase in standarda for determining whether a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the MOV reliability. significant har.ards determination exists licensee) proposed to modify the (2/Is thep saibilityfor an occident of a ( as atated in 10 CFR 50.92 (c).10 CFR Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 "" ## #'D"# 'TP' #^ " "I"#'## 50 91 requires that t the time a licensee Technical Specifications (TS) to delete b",,N"he # [n'tinu$us b$e c of the requests an amen ent,it must pros de the reference to active motor-operated TOL devices and the MOVATS testing and to the Commission its analyses, using valves (MOVs) which will have their pM programs are straply an attemative I j the standards in Section 50.92, about the thermal over.>ad (TOL) protection method for meetag the intent of RG 1.tos. i t l issue of no significant harards devices bypassed. In addition, MOVs The powibility of MOV failure, either motor. cons;deration. Therefore. in accordance are also deleted which are no longer operator or valve is not created by removal i with 10 CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 00.92, the active, because of 10 CFR Part 50. f the TOL devices becaume of the known licensee has performed and provided Appendix R considerations or because sensitivities of the TOL devices. Component Peration will remain the same in terms of itt, f following analysis the r m sement is not requpd for intended function. The deletions and changes (1/ Does the proposed amendment involve safety. Several active mot a which were to the tabH ere made to reflect the active a sigmficant increase in the probabihty or consequences of on occedent previously previously omitted are added to the TS MOVs with TOL devices in force. Therefore. en,/ voted'No. The proposed amendment table. A typographical error in the Unit 1 the changes do not crcate the possibility for does not result in e' change to the current TS table is also corrected. The TS table an accident of a new or different type then plant configuration; rather, the proposed is also reordered by system and valve evaluated previously in the safety analysis arriendment corrects and clanfies e number. By letter dated June 16,1987, nport. m eillance requirement for hardware as TVA provided four attachments which (3/ I, the morsin of safety significantly currently installed in the,fication change were inadvertutly omittid from the reduced?No The bypass of the TOL device is plant. Thus, the proposed techt : c speci to ensure that the MOVs will perform their melves no signifimt increase in the original submittal. This letter also intenced function under accident conditions. r.obabihty or consequences of an accident provides additional ju'stification for the Also, testing is terformed to ider dfy MOV that has been previously evaluated. proposed changes. deg7dahon. meeting the intent of RC 1.106. (21 Does the proposed cmendment create Basis forproposedno significant snd MOVATS testing is more sensitive fer In pssibolity of a new or different kind of hczards considention determination: detecting MOV degradation then are ths TOL l

1 i Federal Register / Vol. 52 No.126 / Wednesday, July 1.1987 / Notices 24561 { l devices. nis results in higher MOV of Nuclear Power (Operations)is being TVA proposed to change the reliability.The changes to the table are made changed to Site Director, ne chief specification of the shift supervisor as i to reflect the active MOVs with TOL devices officer of the ONPis now titled Manager one of the three excluded personnel in force. Thus. there is an increase in the of Nuclear Power and the Health from membership in the fire brigade. margin of safety because of the higher MOV Physicist is now titled Site Radiological Unit 2 has previously been changed to aff has reviewed the licensee's Control Superintendent. The reference this requirement, no significant hazards consideration to the offsite organization for Basis forpmposedno significant determination and agrees with the radiological environmental monitoring hozords consideration determination program and dose calculations is being The Commission has provided hcensee s, analysis. In addition the removed. The site organization includes standards for determining whether a Commission has provided certain the new Plant Operation Review Staff significant hazards determination exists s 1 of m

• bp azj's (PORS). PORS is a staff reporting to the as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c).10 CFR n

Y 9 8" an d Assistant Plant Manager. 50.91 requires that at the time a licensee considerations. The remaining proposed (2) PORC-The proposed changes requests an amend:nent,it must provide changes to add active MOVs omitted affecting PORC would delete several to the Commission its analyses, using from the TS table, to correct a items from PORC responsibility and the standards in Section 50.92 about the typographical error in the Unit 1 TS place thera under the new " technical issue of no significant hazards table, and to reorder the TS table by review and control" process. The consideration.%erefore,in accordance system and valve nur ber are process would establish required with 10 CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 50.92, the encompassed by cxample (1). e.g., a " independent qualified review" and licensee has performed and provided the purely administrative change to TS: for cross-disciplinary review and approval following analysis. example, a change to achieve to support changes currently under Of fs the probability of an occurrence or consistency through out the TS, PORC review responsibility. PORC the comequences of an occidentprevious/> correction of an error, or a change in would then be responsible for providing evoluotedin the safety ano/ysis report nomenclature.Therefore, the staff an oversight review of selected safety significantly increased? No. nis thange is proposes to determine that the evaluations reviewed under the new intended to accurately reflect the changes to application for amendments involves no process. This change would also clarify the Administrative Controts Section (rection significant hazards consideration. PORC responsibikties for review of el of the iechnical specifications due to the Loco / Public Document Room violations of the TS and reportable malignment of the ONP.The functiou location: Chattanooga Hamilton County events. By letter dated June 4,1987.TVA spec Sed in seed n e impwtant to the safe Library,1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, withdrew a Eortion of the May 1B,1987 operabon of SQN have not been abad w deleted. The charges to this section merely Temssee 37402, submittal retaining the requirement for reflect the new positions that hold the Attorney for hcensee: Genera,. proposed TS changes being reviewed by expertise to perform these functions. The Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, the PORC. Also withdrawn, as etated in role, of pORC, RARC, NSRB. and the ISEG i 400 % est Summit Hill Drive, E11 B33-the June 4,1987 letter,is the proposed are advisory rain to provide technical j Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. removal of Special tests and suistance to thou individuals changed with i NRC Assistant Director: John A-experiments fretn PORC review. the responsibility of safe operation of this Zwohnsk! i Therefore, the June 4,1987 letter facility.nis change better identifies those ) Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket narrows the scope of the original positions occupied by individuals qualified to { Nos. 50-327 and 50-328. Sequoyah request. The May 18,1987 submittal also provide this technical assistance. There are Nuclear Plant. Units 1 and 2, Hamilton proposes changes to accurately reflect no hardware, paadum, personn w County Tennessee the titles of the regular PORC members. {*,,j, [,,7,"hi adversely affect i now d d f rin o y unu ual the probability of occurrence or th,e Date of amendment requests: May 18. 19 . supplemented on June 4,1987 (TS circumstances, provided final approval Su'atedYthe saf ty na$siNo B?34) is implemented within 14 days. A The proposed changes to PORC Description of amendment requests: typographical error is also being raponsibilitiu will significantly reduc.e the knnessee Valley Authority (TVA. the corrected number of items that must be reviewed by beensee) proposed to extensively (3)ISEG-The proposed composition PORC. thus aUo' ing the pORC members to w modify Section 6. " Administrative ofISEC for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant focus their attention on the more important Controls." of the Sequoyah Nuclear (SQN)is a change from five dedicated safety nlated issuu nowitems being Plant. Units 1 and 2 Techriical full time onsite engineers to three removed from PORC review will still recen e Specifications (TS). For clarity, the dedicated full-time onsite engineers a detailed technical review by qualified jroposed change has been divided into supplemented by two full-time engineers I"d$d"*l','% g g 43 yi ve areas as follows:(1) Office of located in corporate headquarters and membarship servu only to make th- ) uclear Power (ONP) Reorganization, shared by all TVA nuclear facilities. technical specifications for both units 10 Plant Operations Review Committee ISEG would report to the Director of consistent. This change. in excludmg the shift I (pORC). (3) Independent Safety Nuclear Iafety and Licensing Division, supervisor from membership in the brigade. Es aluation Group (ISEC). (4) (4) RAGAn administrative change ensures that the individual specified in 61.3 Radelogical Assessment Review is proposed to change the titles of the as beina responsible for the control room Committee (RARC). and (5) Fire Brigade members of RARC to be consistent with command function is not distracted by this Members. A separate description for the positions responsible for those peripheral ruponsibility. This change does fdCh area is proVided beloW. functions under the new organization. not advernly affect the safety analysis 01 ONP Reorganization N #' N 0"#IN#I# 8" ######"' E P RARC would provide re orts to the mmistrative char:ge is being made to ' Manager of RadiologicafControl

1. h","/,D,y,

[y# [,$p# ort ange the title of Plant Supermtendent (formerly the Chief, Radiological created? No. nis change represents only a o Phnt Manager. 'Ite Plant Manager Hygiene Branch) and the Plant Manager. change in the adrainistrative process in the uld report directly to the Site (5) Fire Bridst.a Members-For the new positions and responsitulities are gcector.The title of Assistar.t Director Sequoyah Nucle at Plant Unit 1 TS only, identined for review functions of 1

24562 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No,120 / Wednesday, July 1,1987 / Notices organizations such as pORC RARC, NSRB. concerning the application of the impact statement or environmental and ISEC. His review function will continue standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing assessment need be prepared for these ) to be performed by those indmduals who are certain examples (51 FR 7751). One of amendments. If the Commission has ( the examples (ii) of actions not likely to prepared an environmental assessment ew advi ory tole e re potennel for the increase of a possibility of involve a significant hazards under the special circumstances en accident or a new or d1Nerent type consideration is a change which provision in 10 CFR 51,12(b) and has accident from an inadequate review is constitutes an additionallimitation, made a determination based on that I reduced rether than increased due to bevmg restriction, or control not presently assessment,'it is so indicated. the ap repriate personnel designated for included in the Technical Specifications. For further details with respect to the i thsse unctions. for example, a more stringent th' I' f (3)is the margin ofsafety significandy surveillance requirement amendments,(2) the amendments, and a reduced'No. The changes in this amendment The chan8es included in this proposal serve only to clanfy those positions responsible for key safety functions specified application add limitations not presently (3) the Commission's related letters. in section 6 of technical speciScations. No included in the Technical Specifications. Safety Evaluations and/or Environmental Assess nents as function has been impaired or deleted by this The proposed changes add words to the indicated. All of these items are change. On the contrary, these functaons are Techmcal Specifications requiring that enhanced by additional clanry afforded by surveillance be performed on RPS power available for public inspection at the q the reorgaruzation, protection equipment and actiori be Commission's Public Document Room. The staff has reviewed the licensee's taken if equipment is found inoperable. 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, 3 no significant hazards consideration Therefore these changes are similar to and at the local public document rooms determination and agrees with the example (ii). for the particular facilities involved. A I licensee's analysis. Derefore, the staff Accordingly, the Commission copy of items (2) and (3) may be proposes to determine that the proposes to determine that the proposed obtained upon request addressed to the l application for amendments involves no amendment does not involve a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I significant hazards consideration. significant hazards consideration. Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Loca PubhcDocumentRoom LocalPubhc Document Room Director, Division of Ucensing. /ocation: Chattanooga Hamilton County Locat;on Brooks Memorial Ubrary,224 Library,1001 Broad Street. Chattanooga. Main Street. Brattleboro, Vermont 05301. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Tennessee 27402. Attorneyforlicensee: John A. Company, Duquesne Ught Company, y 4ttorneyforlicensee General Ritscher Esq., Ropes a Gray,225 Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Counsel.Tenneesee Valley Authonty, Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetts Power Company Toledo Edison 4no West Summit Hill Drive, E11 B33, 02110. Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 NRCProject Director Victor Nerses, Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.1, Lake NRC Assistant Director: John A. Acting Director County, Ohio NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF Date of application for amendment: Vermont Yankee Nudear Power AMENDMENT TO FACIIIFY December 15,1980, as amended Corporation Docket No. 50 271 OPERATING UCENSE February 10,1987 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station

• Duri the period since publication of Brief description of amendment: The i

Vsroon. Vermont the las i-weekly notice, the amendment makes several editorial Date of application for amendment: Comrmssion bas issued the following changes and corrections, and August 5,1963 (48 FR 49596) and March amendments. The Commission has administrative changes, including 4,1985 determined for each of these deleting the requirement that NRC Description of amendment requeste amendments that the application approval of items involving unreviewed The licensee has requested that a complies with the standards and safety questions shall be obtained prior requirement for reactor protective requirements of the Atomi; Energy Act to licensee internal approval for system RPS power protection panel of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the implementation. The amendment also operability be added to the Technical Commission's rules and regulations. He makes several technical changes: using Specifications, and that a requirement Commission has made appropriate of Unit 2 divisional batteries as an be added to the Technical Specifications findings as required by the Act end the alternate DC power source for Unit I to trip an RPS protective panel if it is Commission's rules and regulations in 10 shutdown, increasing the number and found inoperable. De licensee has also CFR Chapter 1, which are set forth in the changing the location of drywell aserage proposed surveillance tests of RPS license amendment. air temperature instruments, c)angin6 protective panel overvoltage, Notice of Consideration of Issuance of the automatic depressurization system undervoltage, and underfrequency Amendment to Facility Operatin8 instrument air low pressure alarm relays be added to the Technical Ucense and Proposed No Significant setpoint, deleting an obsolete footnote, Specifications. The licensee has Hazards Consideration Determination and changing the containment vacuum proposed these changes in order to meet and Opportunity for Hearing in breaker isolation valve opening setpoint NRC requirements for Technical connection with these actions was The Commission has denied the portion Specification assurances of operability published in the Fadaral Register as of the amendment application for recently installed RPS power indicated. No request for a hearing or requesting an administrative change protection panel operability. The RPS petition for leave to intervene was filed related to corporate and staff power protection panels were installed followmg this notice. organization charts. A Notice of Denial to alleviate NRC concerns that voltage. Unless otherwise indicated, the of M Aat has been published could be varied sufficiently by a seismic, Commission has determined that these separately in the Federal Regater, event to cause failure of the RPS. amendments satisfy the criteria for Basis forproposedno signipcant categorical exclusion in accordance 00'**l5****"I*****1** hazords consideration determination: wtth 10 CFR 5122. %erefore, pursuant Effective date:Iune 9.1987 The Commission has provided guidance to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental Amendment No. 6

k. Federal Register / Vo!, 62. No.126 / Wednesday, July 1.1987 / Noticea seats facility Opentire Ucenee No. NPF. Focility Openting License'No. NPF. Focility Openting Ucenees Nos.

58. This amendment revised the 18 Amendment revised the Ucense.

DPR41 andDPR d1: Amendments Technical Specifications. Date afinitic/noticein Fedesal revised the Technical apadne tions. Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal Radster:May 21,1988 (52 FR 188e2) Date ofinitio/ notice in Federal Register: March 12,1987 (82 FR 7578) he licensee provided additional Register: June 18,1988 (51 FR 22235) and ne Commission's related evaluation infonnation subsequent to the initial , renoticed on May 6,1987 (52 FR 19946) of the amendment is consteined in a notice published in the Federal Register.

%e Comminion's related evaluation Safety Evaluation dated June 9,19s7.

The October 7.1986 submittal provided of the==aad=ents is contained in a No significant hazards consideration clarification.The April 10,1986 Safety Evaluation dated June a,1w. comments received: No submittal provided minor corrections to No sipificant hazards consideration LocalPublic Document Room the analysis. This additional information comments received: No location: Perry Public Ubrery. 3753 Main does not alter our proposal of no Localpublic Document Room Street. Perry, Ohio 44081 significant hazards consideration. /ocation: Environmental and Urban Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. ES. Affairs Ubrary, Florida Intemational H 8 88 "8 8 269,50 279 and 30 387. Ocomes Nuclear Evba i o d Ma 1987. University, Miami, Florida 33199. Station. Units 1,2. and 3, Ocemes County. South Camlina No significant hazards consideration GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket comments received: No. No. so.aee,nuee Mile Island Nuclear Date of applicationfor amendments: LocalPublic Document Room Station, Unit No.1, Daupkla County, February 10,1980, as supplemented on location: Indian River Junior College Pennsylvania August 20,1988 Ubrary,3200 Virgina Avenue Ft. Pierce, Date of application for amendment: Brief description of amendments: Florida. Februsty 8,1987 These amendments revise the Station's 8tiv/d88Cri tion of amendment:This Florida Power and Ught f*a-r=ky P n common Technical Specifications (TSs) Docket Nos. 85 20s and 38 251. amendment revised the Technical laat Units 3 and 4. Dade County, f tions to a un r n cate that t a 1 a monitors are now available over the ne new lodine sampler provides for previous two monitors and reflect the Date of application for amendments: continuous sampling unrestricted areas actual plant design and (2) delete TS May 7,1986, as supplemented on to determine compliance with 10 CFR 20 3.1.12.1(c) to no longer require a 30-day February 20,1987, and April 23,1987, and 10 CFR So, Appendix 1.The report for outages of less than 4 hours of Brief description of amendments: amendment also made an editorial the Operational Aid Computer. Also TS %ese amendments delete the chan1r ir "'sble 4.22 2. 3.1.12.1(d) has been redesignated as "I3 specifications for the Auxiliary pg,# June 8,1987 3.1.12.1(c) because TS 3.1.12.1(c) has Feedwater (AFW) System and the Effectm!,ssuai ce:date; june 8 im been deleted. Condensate Storage Tanks (CST)in Date ofIssuance: June 8.1987 current Techmcal Specifimtion 3.8, Amendment No.:130 EHective date: lune 8,1987 Steam and Power Conversion Systems. Facility Openting License No. DPR. Amendment Nos.150,150 and 156 Requirements for the AFW System and

50. Amendment revised the Technical Facility Operating Licenses Nos.

CST sre included in the new Technical Specifications. DPR48, DPR-47, and DPR.55. Specifications 3.18 and 3.19. %e Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Amendments revised the Technical specifications provide explicit limiting Register: April 22,1987 (52 FR 13337) Specifications. conditions for operation (LCO). The Commission's related evaluation Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal applicability requirements, and Action of the amendment is contained in a Register: May 8,1987 (52 FR 18942) requirements for operation of the AFW Safety Evaluation dated lune 8,1987 l } The Commission's related evaluation System and CST. The format (i.e., LCO, No significant hazards consideration of the amendments is contained in a applicability Action requirements)is comments received: No. Safety Evaluation dated June 8,1987, that of NUREG-0452, Standard . Loca/PubhcDocument Room No significant hazards consideration Technical Specifications for location: Government Publications co'nments received: No Westinghouse Pressurized Water Section. State Ubrary of Pennsylvania, localPublic Document Room Reactors (WSTS), although the Education Building, Commonwealth and location: Oconee Codnty Ubrary,501 requirements in the proposed Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, West Southbroad Street. Walhalla. Specifications differ from the WSTS Pennsylvania 17128 South Carolina 29001 e u of th uniqueness the urkey Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Florida Power and Light Company, et al.,

• har*d sYet'"' thre' turbine hv"' Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Docket No. so ass, St. Lucie Plant, IJnit Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton,

pumps, No. 2. St. Lucie County, Florida to alspmvMe Georgia, Docket Nos. 3H21 and 89 808

'""' I Date of application of amendment surveillance requirements for the CST April 21,1988, as supplemented October which were not included in the existing 7,1986 and April 10,1987. Technical Specifications, correct errors Date of applicationfor amendments: Briefdescription of amendment:The in the valve numbers for two primary June 20,1988 as supplemented July 22, amendment deletes Ucense Condition coolant system pressure isolation 1988 and January 2.1987 2.C.(19) which limited the burnup of valves, and update the Bases to support Brief description of amendments: The spent fuel in the spent fuel pool to 38,000 the changes for the AFW System and amendments modify the Technical MWD /MI'U. CST. Specifications to permit operation with Date of/ssuance:May 29,1987 Date ofissuance; june 8,1987 only one recirculation loop in operation Effective Date:May 29,1987 Effective date: June 8,1987 and to implement the jet pump Amendment No.:21 Amendment Nos.124 and its surveillance recommendations of I

i 24564 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No.126 / Wednesday, July 1,1987 / Notices NUREC/CR 3052 "BWR Jet Pump prevent precipitation, make the Coolant (LOCA) Limits. These revised Assembly Failure." moderator temperature coefficient a LOCA Limits were determined using a Date ofissuance: June 10,1987 ramp function with power rather than a revised delta P in tion penalty factor Effective date: June 10.1987 step function, and add foomotes such during the reft phase of LOCA's and Amendment Nos.:141 and 77 that addition of water from the RWST limiting axial power shapes. The revised Facility Opemting License Nos. DPR-does not constitute a boron deletion. ' delta P injection penalty factor and the 57andNPT5. Amendments revised the The remaining items from the licensee's 'inethod to select the limiting axial Technical Specifications. March 28.1987 submittal will be the power shapes were proposed and Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal subject of a separate action. justified in the Maine Yankee Atomic Register: August 27,1988 (51 FR 30572) Date ofissuance: Jane 10.1987. Power Company (MYAPCo) letter to The Applicant's January 2.1987, Effective date: June 10.1987. NRC dated November 10,1988. Thest supplement was merely to correct a Amendment Nos.1111 and 94. proposed revisions to the Emergency - typographical error. Facility Opemting License Nos. DPR-Core Cooling system (ECCS) Evaluation The Commission's related evaluation Se andDPR 7d. Amendments revised the Model were reviewed and found of the amendments is contained in a Technical Specifications. acceptable in the NRC letter to Safety Evaluation dated June 10.1987 Date ofinitialnoticein Federal MYAPCo dated January 8,1987. No significant hazards consideration Register: May 8.1987 (52 FR 18949). Date ofissuance: June 15,1987 ccmments received: No The Commission's related evaluation Effective date: June 15,1987 LocalPublic Document Room of the amendments is contained in a Amendment No.:98 location: Appling County Public Library. Safety Evaluation dated June 10,1987. 7,cjjjfy gp,fgfj,ggjg,,,, yo, ppg, i 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia No significant hazards consideration

36. Amendment revised the Technical 3151) comments received: No.

f t in tio/noticein Federal Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket loc d Pres nP1 e No. 50-458. River Bend Station. Unit 1 Memorial Library. 500 Market Street. St. Register: March 25,1987 (52 FR 9577) West Feliciana Parish,loulslana The Commluion's related evaluation Joseph. Michigan 49085 Date of application for amendment of the amendment is contained 1n a Lou. iana Power and Light Company, Safety Evaluation dated June 15,1987. is january 28.1987 as supplemented 13 and April 18,1987. Docket No. 58-3e2, Waterford Steam No significant hazards consideration l'ebruarfiescription of amendment: The Brief Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles comments received: No i amendment modified the Scram Parish. Louisiana Loca/Public Document Room Discharge Volume Water Level High Date of amendment request February location: Wiscasset Public Library, High tnp setpoint for the Float Switches 23.1987 S.treet Wiscasset. Maine 04578 LSN013A. B. C and D in the Technical Brief description of amendment:The Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et Specifications. amendment revised the Technical al., Docket No. 50-345, Millstone Nuclear Date ofissuance: June 8.1987. Specifications by:(1) raising the Power Station, Unit No.1, New London EIfective date: June 8,1987, emergency feedwater initiation setpoint Amendment No. 8 from 30% to 36.3% of wide range level: County, Connecticut ) Facility Openting License No. NPF-(2) raising the required tefueling water Date of application for amendmeat: ) e This amendment revised the storage poollevel from 82% to 83%; and January 20,1987 i Technical Specifications. (3) raising the required safety injection Briefdescription of amendment: The l + Date ofinitia/ notice in Federal tank level from 80% to 81%. amendment adde six (8) fire protection I Register: May 8.1987 (52 FR 18948). Date ofissuance: June 15,1987 water suppression systems to the list of The Commission's related evaluation Effective date: June 15,1987 fire protection systems in Technical of the amendment is contained in a Amendment No.:19 Specification 3.12.B.1. Four (4) of the Safety Evaluation dated June 8.1987. Facility Operating License No. NPE-proposed suppression systems are [ No significant hazards consideration

38. Amendment revised the Technical located in the turbine building. The j

comments received: No Specifications. other two (2) are located in the reactor 1 Loca/ Public Document Room Date ofinitialnotice in Federal building. The proposed additions are location: Government Documents Register: March 25,1987 (52 FR 9574-6) new requirements for suppressing fires Department. Louisiana State University. The Commission's related evaluation in the tube c9 systems of the condensate Baton Rouge, Loulslana 70803 of the amendment is contained in a booster pumps. reactor feedwater Indiana and Michigan Electric Company, Safety Evaluation dated lune 15,1987. pumps and motor genaam sets, as well Docket Nos. 56 315 and 50-318, Donald No significant hazards consideration as in the curbed area of the motor c mments received:No. generator sets, turbine building C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.1 and

2. Berrien County, Michigan E##.alPublic Document Room unloading area and the mezzanine level location: University of New Orleans

'*ble t Date of application for amendments: Library Louisiana Collection, Lakeiront. Date issuance: lune 5.1987 March 28,1987 (Partial). New Orleans,leulslana 70122 Brief description *of amendments:The Effective date: lune 5.1987 amendments changed the Technical Maine Yar.kee Atomic Power Company, Amendment No :3 Specifications (TS) to revise the Docket No 50-309. Maine Yankee facility Operating License No. DPR-i refueling operation boron Atomic Power Station Lincoln County,

21. This amendment revised the concentrations, increase the boron Maine Technical Specifications.

j concentrations in the refueling water Date of application for amendment: Date ofinitialnotice in Federal storage tank (RWST) and accumulators. February 24.1987 Register: March 12,1987 (52 FR 7888). increase the usable water volumes Brief description of amendment: This The Commission's related evaluation required in the RWST, increase the amendment modifies the Technical of the amendment is contained in a RWST temperature at all times to Specifications to reflect revised Loss of. Safety Evalustion dated June 5,1987.

Federal Regleter / Vol. 82. No.128 / Wednesday, July 1.1987 / Notices $4585 No significant hasards consideration 7 bell /ty Operating ucense No. NPr. No signi6 cant hasards consideration comments received: No. 4A Amendment revised the Techalcal commer.ts received:No LocalPublic Document Room 8pectfIcetions. LocalPublic DocumentRoom location:Waterford Public Library,40 Date ofinitialnoticein Federal location: California Polytechnic State Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Register: March 12.1987 (52 FR 7888). University Library, Covernment Connecticut 08388. ne Commission's related evaluation '. Documents and Maps Department, San of the amendment is contained in a - Luis Obispo, California e8407 Nueenst N

• '8v Safety Evaluation dated June 15,1987.

PaclRc Gas and Electric mpany, DockM N M M1Hsh e Power Station, Unit No. 2. Town of No significant hazards consideration Docket Nos. 56 275 and ES ass, Diablo e mments received:No. Waterford, Connecticut Canyon Naciser Power Plant, Unit Nos. LocalPublicDocument Room 1 ad 2 San Luis OWapo Comty' Date of applicationfor amendment: location: Waterford Public Librnty,49 CaKfamia December 10.1986 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford. Briefdescription of amendment:h Connecticut 08385 Date ofapplicationfor amendments: amendment revised the Technical March 25,1987, as supplemented May Specifications Sections 4.6.1.2.d. Pacinc Gu ad M Compey, 28,1987 D**k*** ****', San Luis Obispo Brief description of amendments:% Canya 4.8.1.2.g. 4.8.1.7.2 and Technical Nuclear Power Plant amedmets revbd ee Technical Specification Bases Section 3/4.6.1.7 to delete the requirement to leak test the Canty, Cahfmale Specifications to accommodate Cycle 2 containment purge supply and exhaust Date of applicationforamendment and later operation of Unit 2, and Cycle isolation valves every six months. March 17,1987, as supplemented May 6, 3 and later operation of Unit 1. Instesd. these valves would be leak 1987. Date oflasuance: June 12,1987 4 tested at intervals no greater than 24 Briefdescription of amendment:N Effective date: June 12,1987 l months in acordance with Technical amendment extends the time for Amendment Noe 14 and 13 Specification Section 4.6.1.2.d and to submittal of a steam generator tube Pacility Operotlig Licenses Nos. CFR 50. Appendix j in conjunction with rupture analysis to April 1988. DPR@andDPR.a2 Amendments a valve seat replacement program. Effective date: June 12,1987 rev sed the Technical Specifications. Date of assuance: lune 15.1987 Amendment No.:12 Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Effective date: lune 15,1987 Facility Operating License No. DPR. g,g,g,,:ygyg,gggygggpggggqq) g Amendment No.:5 82: Amendment revised the license. W Conunksion's related evaluation Facility Opemting License No. DPR. Date ofinitialnotice in Federal of the amadants k containd in a M Amendment revised the Technical. Register: May 12,1987 (51 FR 17864) . Safety Evalaation dated June 12,1987 Specifications. N Commission's related evaluation Date ofinitialnotice in Federal of the amendment is contained in a No significant hazards consideration RegisteriMarch 12,1987 (52 FR 7868) Safety Evaluation dated June 12,1987. Loco. ent Room The Commission's related evaluation No significant hazards consideration of the amendment is contained in a comments received: No. location: California Polytechnic State Safety Evaluation dated June 15,1987. LocalpublicDocument Room d t, Su No significant hazards consideration locat: ant California Polytechnic State comments received: No. Uruversity Library, Government Luis Obispo, California 95407 Loco /Public Document Room Documents and Maps Department, San Pennsylvania Power and IJsht location: Waterford Public Library,49 Luis Obispo, California 93407. Campeay, Deckat No. EH88. Rope Ferry Road. Waterford. Connecticut 06365 Pacinc Gas and Electric Comps Susquehamas Steam M Th Docket Nos. 50-275 cad 86 323 Unit 2 Luzerne County. Femasylvania Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. Date of applicationfor amendment-Docket No. 56 423, Millstone Nuclear 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, March 27.1988, as revised April 18,1988 Power Station Unit No. 2, Town of California March 2, and April 3.1987 Waterford, r===rticut Date of applicationforamendments: Brief description of amendment %is Date of amendment request: February 10,1987 amendment revised the SSES Unit 2 December 5,1988 Brief description ofamendments: Technical Specincenne to include l Description of amendment requette Wee amedmonts allpw replacement opera 6malcond a equipent which W amendment revised Millstone Unit of fuel rods in fuel assemblies with filler must be operable to ensure proper No. 3 Technical Specification Figure 6.2- . rods or vacancies on a limited basis functiming of 6e newly instaued

2. Unit Organisetion, by changing the provided that such replacement is drywou mung fana, depiction of the Millstone Station demonstrated to be acceptable by a Dode ofissuance June 5,1987 Services Orgenlaation as individual cycle-specific reload analysis.

Effective date: June 5.1987 Security, Quality Services and Date offsevance June 8,1987 AmendmentNo. 38 Radiological Services groups reporting Effective date: June 8,1987 Facility Operatify Licer se No. NPF-to the Station Services Superintendent Amendment Noe:13 and 11

22. His amendment revised the to depiction as one group of staff Rocility Operating Licenses Nos.

Technical Specifications. l including QA. Security Health Physics, DPR@ andDPR.a2 Amendments Date ofinitialnodcein Federal l Chemistry and other Site Support revised the Technical Specifications. Register: May 7,1988 (51 FR 18032) l Services Staff reporting to the Station Daar ofinitia/noticein Federal The 'an=ission's related evaluation l r Services Superintendent. Redster: April 22,1987 (52 FR 13344). of the amendment is contained in a j Dole ofissuance June 15,1987 The Co==i=='an's related evaluation Safety Evaluation dated June 5,1987. Effsetive defe: June 15,1987 of the maandments is contained in a No signincant hasards maatda etien Amendment No.:6 Safety Evaluation dated June a,1987 comments received: No

s 24566 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No.126 / Wednesday, July 1,1987 / Notices LocalPublic Document Room Facility Operating License No. NPF. CFR Chapter 1. which are set forth in the location: Osterhout Free Library.

57. This amendment revised the license amendment.

ReIerence Department,71 South Technical Specifications. Because of exigent or emergency Franklin Street, Wilkes Barre. Date ofinitiolnoticein Federal circumstances associated with the d ste Pennsylvania 18701. Register:(52 FR 16954) May 8,1987 the amendment was needed, there was The Commisrion's related evaluation, not time for the Commission to publish. Power Authodty of We State of New of the amendment is contained in a for public Eomment before issuance, its York, Docket No. 50-286, Indian Poin' Safety Evaluation dated June 9,1987. usual 30-day Notice of Consideration of Unit No. 3. Westchester County, New No significant hazards consideration issuance of Amendment and Proposed York comments received: No No Significant Hazards Consideration Date of applicationforamendment: LocalPublic Document Room Determination and Opportunity for March 10,1987. location: Pennaville Public Library.190 Hearing. For exigent circumstances, the Brief description of amendment: The S. Broadway. PennsvCle, New Jersey Commission has either issued a Federal amendment revises the Technical 08070 Register notice providing opportunity for Specification requirement for control Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50 public comment or has used local media bank insertion limits. The revision is 483, Callaway Plent, Unit 1. Callaway to providi notice to the pub,a facility of lic in the area surrounding a licensee bemg made to reflect a more County, Missourt conservative insertion position for the C the licer see e application and of the and D control banks. Date efoPPlication for amendment Commission's proposed determination March 27.1987. of no significant hazards consideration. Date ofissuance June 8.1987 Briefdescription of amendment: The The Commission has provided a Effective date: June 8,1987 amendment modified Section 5.3.1 of the reasonable opportunity for the public to Amendment No.:75 Technical Specifications to allow for comment, using its best efforts to make facilities Opetuting License No. DPR-limited replacement of fuel rods with ublic means of available to the for the public to respond 64: Amendment revised the Techm, cal filler rods or vacancies if supported by a communication Spec,fications, cycle-specific reload analysis. quickly and in the case of telephone Date ofinitialnotice in Federal Date ofissuance: June 8,1987. comments, the comments have been Register: May 6.1987 (52 FR 16954) Effective date: June 8.1987. recorded or transcribed as appropriate The Commission's related evaluation Amendment No. 24. and the licensee has been informed of of the amendment is contained in a FOCilitY OPeruting License No. NPF. Safety Evaluation dated June 8.1987.

30. Amendment revised the Technical the public comments In circumstances where failure to act No significant hazards consideration Spjcificaf,ons/alnoticein Fe eral in a timely way would have resulted, for on comments received: N LocalPublic Document Room Register: April 22,1987 (52 FR 13350) example,in derating or shutdown of a The Commission's related evaluat.on nuclear power plant or in prevention of 1

location: White Plains Public labrary, of the amendment is contained in a either resumption of operation or of l 100 Martine Avenue. White Plains. New York 10610. Safety Evaluation dated June 8,1987. increase in power output up to the No significant hazards consideration plant's licensed powerlevel. the Public Service Electric & Gas Company, comments received: No. Commission may not have had an Docket No. 50-354 Hope Creek LocalPublic Document Room opportunity to provide for public j Generating Station. Salem County, New location: Callaway County Public comment on its no significant hazards Jerse:c Library,710 Court Street, Fulton, determination. In such case, the license i Date of application for amendment: Missouri 65251 and the John M. Olin amendment has been issued without April 3,1987, as supplemented May 8. Library. Washington University, Skinker opportunity for comment. If there has and Lindell Boulevards, St. Louis, been some time for public comment but 1987 M ssouri 63130' less than 30 days, the Commission may Brief description of amendment: De provide an opportunity for public amendment has granted relief from an NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF comment. If comments have been l ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, AMENDMENT TO FACILITY requested. It is so stated. In either event. I Section XI, valve leakage test OPERATING LICENSE AND FINAL the State has been consulted by l requirement for the Hope Creek DETERMINATION OF NO telephone whenever possible. Generatmg Station. %e amendment SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS Under its regulations, the Commission also extended the current Technical CONSIDERATION AND may issue and make an amendment Specification surveillance intervals for OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING immediately effective, notwithstanding 27 reactor coolant system pressure (EXIGENT OR EMERGENCY the pendency before it of a request for a isolation valves and primary CIRCUMSTANCES) hearing from any person, in advance of containment isolation valves, on a one-During the period since publication of the holding and completion of any time-only basis, from once every 18 the last bi weekly notice, the required hearing, where it has months and once every 24 months, until Commission has issued the following determined that no significant hazards the first refueling outage (currently amendments.The Commission has consideration is involved. i scheduled to begin on February 1,1988). determined for each of these The Commission has applied the The code relief allows leak tests of the amendments that the application for the standards of to CFR 50.92 and has made 27 valves, required by the code to be amendment complies with the standards a final determination that the performed no less than once every two and requirements of the Atomic Energy amendment involves no significant years, to be deferred until the first Act of1954, as amended (the Act), and hazards consideration. The basis for this refueling outage-the Commission's rules and regulations, determination is contained in the l Date ofissuance: June 9.1987 The Commission has made appropriate documents related to this action. i Effective date: June 9,1987 findings as required by the Act and the Accordingly, the amendments have been Amendment No. 4 Commission's rules and regulations in 10 issued and made effective as indicated. i

Federal Register / Vol. 82. No.126 / Wednesday July 1.1987 / Notices 24867 Unless otherwise indicated, the petitioner's right under the Act to be 3737 and the following message Commission has determined that these made a party to the proceeding: (2) the addressed to(Profect D/ rector / amendments satisfy the criteria for nature and extent of the petitioner's petitioner's name and telephone categorical exclusion in accordance property, financial. or other interest in numbert date petition was mailed: plant w ith to CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant effect of any order wh)ich may bethe proceeding; and (3 the poulble name; an8 publication date and page to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental ' admberof this Federal Register notice. impset statement or envirorunental entered in the proceeding on the 'A copy of the petition should also be i dssessment need be prepared for thWe petitjoner's interest.b petition phould sent to the Office of the General amendments.lf the Commission has also identify the specific aspect (s) of the Counsel-Bethesda. U.S. Nuclear prepared an environmental assessment subject matter of the proceeding as to Regulatory Commission. Washington, under the special circumstances which petitioner wishes to tr:tervene. DC 20565, and to the attorney for the provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has Any person who has filed a petition for licensee. made a determination based on that leave to intervene or who has been Nontimely filings of petitions for leave assessment, it is so indicated. admitted as a party may amend the to intervene, amended petitions. For further details with respect to the petition without requesting leave of th* supplemental petitions and/or requests action see (1) the application for Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the forhea wiu not be entertained emendment. (2) the amendment to first prehearing conference scheduled in absent determination by the Facility Operating Ucense, and (3) the the prMas but such an amended Commission, the presiding officer or the Commission's related letter, Safety petition must satisfy the specificity Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, that Evaluation and/or Environmental requirements described above. tition and/or uest should be Assessment, as indicated. All of these Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the fed based upon alancing of the items are available for public inspection the first prehearing conference { actors sPecified in to Cm 2.n4(a)(1) at the Commission's public Document scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner Room.1717 H Street. NW, Washington. shall file a supplement to the petition to (v) and 2.n4(d). DC. and at the local public document intervene which must includt a list of b Cleveland Electric Illuminating l room for the particular facility involved, the contentions which are sought to be r==p==y Duquesne Usht Company, i A copy ofitems (2) and (3) may be litigated in the matter, and the bases for Ohio Mann Contpany, Pennsylvania obtained upon request addressed to the each contention set forth with Power==pany, Toledo Edison r U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. reasonable specificity. Contentions shall Company. Docket No. 56 440. Perry i Washington. DC 20555. Attention: be limited to matters within the scope of Nuclear Power Plant. Unit No.1, take Director, Division of Ucensing. the amendment under consideration. A County, Ohio The Commission is also offering an petitioner who fails to file such a opportunity for a hearing with respect to supplement which satisfies these Date of applicationfor amendment the issuance of the amendments. By July requirements with respect to at least one May 29,1987 31,1967, the licensee may file a request contention will not be permitted to Briefdescription ofamendment:The for a hearing with respect to issuance of participate as a party. amendment revises the steam tunnel the amendment to the subject facility Rose permitted to intervene become and turbine building main steam line operating license and any person whose parties to the proceeding, subject to any high temperature trip setpoints and interest may be affected by this limitations in the order granting leave to suowable values. Items 2.f 2.g. 2.h. 4.f. proceeding and who wishes to intervene, and have the opportunity to 4 3,5.f and 5 3 of Table 3.3.2 2 of the p irticipate as a party in the proceeding participate fully in the conduct of the Technical Specifications. must file a written petition for leave to hearing, including the opportunity to p,g,,7 j,,,,,,,,. June 10,1987 intervene. Requests for a hearing and present evidence and cron-examine petitions for leave to intervene shall be witnesses. EffectJve dote:May 29,1987 filed in accordance with the Since the Commission has made a Amendment No. 7 Commission's " Rules of Practice for final determination that the amendment Focility Operating I.icense No. NPF-Domestic Ucensing Proceedings" in 10 involves no signiScant hazards

58. %is amendment revised the CFR Part 2. If a request for a hearing or consideration, if a hearing is requested.

Technical Specifications. petition for leave to intervene is filed,by it will not stay the ef'ectiveness of the Public comments requested as to the above data, the Commission or an amendment. Any hearing held would proposedno significant hasards Atomic Safety and ucansing Board. take place while the amendmentis in consideration No.The Commission's designated by the Commission or by the effect-related evaluation of the amendment, Chairman of the Atomic Safety and A request for a hearing or a petition consultation with the State of Ohio, Ucensing Board Panel, will rule on the for leave to intervene must be filed with finding of emergency circumstances, and request and/or petition and the the Secretary of the Commission U.S. final determination of no significant Secretary or toe designated Atomic Nuclear Regulatory Coauniasion. hasards consideration are contained la Safety and Ucensing Board willissue a Washington, DC 20555, Attentiom a Safety Evaluation dated May 29,1987. notice of hearing or an appropriate Docketing and Service Branch. or may

order, be delivered to the Commission's Public A##8#"'Iforlicensee# Jay Silbe'3' As required by to CFR 2.n4, a Document Room,in7 H Street NW.

Esq., Shaw. Pittman, Ma a tition for leave to intervene shall set Washington. DC, by the above data. Trowbridge 2300N Street NW, forth with particularity the interest of Where petitions are filed during the last Washington, DC m37 the petitior.or in the proceeding and how ten (10) days of the notice period, it is 40c8/Pt'blic Document floom that interest may be affected by the requested that the petitioner promptly so locotion: Perry Public Ubrary,3753 Main results of the ymceeding.The petidon inform the Canunission by a toll-free Street Peny. Ohio 44081. should specifically explain the reasons telephone call to Western Union at (e00) N1tCProject Director: Martin J. why intervention should be permitted 325 0000 (la Missourt (800) 342-6700). Virgilio, Acting. with particular reference to the The Western Union operator should be Deted at nothesda. Maryland this asth day following factors:(1) the nature of the given Datagram identification Number offunniteer. -}}