ML20237D795
| ML20237D795 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1987 |
| From: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237D797 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712240196 | |
| Download: ML20237D795 (19) | |
Text
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-277 AND S0-?78 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-4A and DPR-56, issued to Philadelphia Electric Company, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, and Atlantic City Electric Company for operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3.
located in York County, Pennsylvania.
The proposed amendments would modify Section 6 of the facility Technical Specifications to reflect (I) a new corporate and (II) a new plant staff organizational structure, (III) a revised composition of the Plant Operations Review Committee and (IV) several administrative changes; in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated November 19, 1987 In connection with this matter the Commission has also issued, by letter dated December 18, 1987, a temporary waiver of compliance with respect to deviations from the organizational structure currently described in Section 6, Administrative Controls, of the Technical Specifications. This letter also permits initiation of implementation of the above proposal, on an interim basis pending completion of consideration of the application for amendment.
8712240196 871210 PDR ADDCK 05000277 P
l The licensee's application is submitted as part of its corrective actions l
in response to an Order issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) on March 31, 1987 which required the plant to be snut down due principally to
' inattentiveness by control room licensed personnel. The proposed reorgani-zation is also reflected throuahout the' licensee's Plan for Restart of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,Section I, Corporate Action, (Plan) which was submitted on November 25, 1987 The information in the Plan has been considered by the staff to be supplementary to the licensee's application for amendment.
In the Plan the licensee has identified four root causes for the declining performance at the PBAPS and has also identified corrective action i
objectives in response to the root causes. The November 25, 1987 submittal j
responds to the fourth root cause by describing the Corporate portion of the i
l overall Plan while a future submittal will provide further descriptions 4
regarding site specific activities.
The licensee states in Section 1.9 of the Plan that two concepts underlie its response to the fourth root cause. The first concept is that organization structure, management systems and managerial ability are interdependent elements; each impacts upon the varying degree of effectiveness of the others.
The second concept deals with strengthening the licensee's self assessment-activities. The proposed organizational structure identified in i
the licensee's amendment application is a principal factor in attaining the goals associated with both of these objectives.
I. Corporate Organizational Structure The proposed revisions would reorganize the corporate staff between the plant manager and the senior vice president levels. The current Technical 1
Specification (TS) Figure 6.2-1_ showing the offices of the Senior Vice President-Nuclear Power, the Vice President (VP)-Electric Production, the Manager-Nuclear Production, the Superintendent-Nuclear Generation Division and the Superintendent-Quality Assurance Division would be revised.
Replacing these offices would be a Senior Vice President-Nuclear with four Vice Presidents and a General Manager for Nuclear Quality Assurance reporting to him. This would reduce the organizational chain of command by removing two 1evels of offsite corporate management. Two of the VP's would be located on the Limerick and the Peach Bottom plant sites thus establishing a corporate office presence onsite. The VPs for Nuclear Services and for Nuclear Engineering would direct staffs who would have responsibility only for nuclear power plant related issues. The licensee indicates that these changes will focus corporate attention on station necessities, will enhance communications between the station organizations and the highest levels of corporate management and will provide better functional jrouping of related disciplines.
The proposed position of Vice President-Nuclear Services will include certain responsibilities that were previously within the Offices of the YP-Electric Production Department, the Manager-Nuclear Production, the Superintendent-Nuclear Services. The office of YP-Nuclear Services would have four organizations:
(1) Nuclear Support, for licensing, fuel management, radiation protection, waste management, chemistry, emergency preparedness, security and the Operating Experience Assessment Program, (2) Nuclear 1
Maintenance, for supplemental craft maintenance support, (3) Nuclear Training, for licensed, general employee and crafts training and the professional developmentprogramsand(4)NuclearAdministration,forpersonnel, budget,
computer and record management.
The benefits attributable to the reorganization of Nuclear Services are discussed in detail in Section 2 6 o the Plan.
These benefits generally accrue from the provision of additional resources and the centralization of these functions to support the identification and meeting of needs in these ' areas in a focussed timely manner.
The proposed office of Vice President-Nuclear Engineering will includ certain responsibilities that were previously within the office of the VP-Engineering and Research Department.
This office would include four organizations:
(1) Engineering, for design, analyses, studies and assistance (2) Project Management, to manage engineering projects for each station
,(3)
Engineering Design, for conceptual design support, and services, and (4 Construction Superintendent for Limerick Unit 2.
The licensee identifies the benefits of the reorganization of Nuclear Engineering in Section 2 5 of its Plan as being (1) the dedication of a significant portion of its corporate engineering resources to the support of nuclear operations
- exclusively, and (2) establishing single point accountability for the management of engineering projects at appropriate management levels.
The corporate level Nuclear Review Board (NRB) will be revised to prov for an elevated reporting relationship to the office of the Chief Executive Officer on a quarterly basis in addition to reporting regularly to the Senior VP-Nuclear.
The NRB chairmanship has been made a full time position and the NRB membership has been broadened by including three members from Philadelphia Electric Company.
The licensee states that this will strengthen the experience and expertise of the NRB and will ensure its direct access to the highest corporate management level.
_ ~ _ _ -.. - - -..
o
The proposed position of General Manager-Nuclear Quality Assurance will include certain responsibilities that were previously within the offices of the Manager-Nuclear Production, the Superintendent-Nuclear Generation Division and the.VP, Engineering and Research Department. This office would include
-five organizations:
Peach Bottom Quality, Limerick Ouality, Quality Support, Performance Assessment and the Independent Safety Engineering Group. The licensee states that this consolidation of quality assurance efforts will provide for a more coordinated quality assurance operation resulting in early identification, evaluation and resolution of potential safety concerns.
II Plant Staf# Organizational Structure The onsite station organizational structure, below the Vice President level, will be expanded horizontally by increasing the number of positions at both the Manager and the Superintendent levels. An additional sheet has been added to Figure 6.'/-2 to acconnodate these changes. The current Manager-Nuclear Plant will be renamed Plant Manager. A Pro,iect Manager will be added to provide separate management accountability and authority for plant outages, planning and scheduling, reporting and modifications. A Support Manager will be added to provide strengthened focus and accountability for such activities as security, emergency preparedness, administration and personnel. A Superintendent-Training will be added, reporting to the VP-Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), to ensure more attention to site training needs.
The Plant Manager will manage the current positions of Superintendent-Operations and Superintendent-Plant Services as well as the new positions of Superintendent-Maintenance and Instrumentation and Controls and l
Superintendent-Technical. The Superintendent-Operations will be assisted by 1
l
an Assistant Superintendent-Operations position which replaces the current Operations Engineer position. A new Shift Manager position, replacing the current Shift' Superintendent and some of the duties of the current Operations Engineer, will provide a higher level of management authority on each shift, will prevent isolation of management from the operators and will provide career path opportunities for Operations personnel. The Shift Technical Advisor, Shift Supervisor and operator positions remain essentially
~
unchanged except to reflect new position titles. The number of non-licensed operators outside the control room will be increased from three to five.
A new position of Operations Support Engineer will report to the Assistant Superintendent-Operations. This position will provide the technical support formerly provided by the Operations Engineer and will, therefore, relieve the Shift Manager's staff of these functions. The Operations Support Engineer's staff will include a technical staff, a utility shift manager position which will be filled when shift schedules pemit and an Operations Support Superintendent. The supporting staff consisting of utility shift operators, a blocking coordinator and an electrical supervisor will assist shift operators in developing equipment blocking permits for taking systems out of service, shift scheduling, procedure review and coordination of maintenance and surveillance testing of electrical equipment to support operations.
The current position of Superintendent-Plant Services will consolidate the existing chemistry and health physics groups and will also have a new position of radwaste engineer. A new position of Superintendent-Technical will manage a Technical Engineer and a Regulatory Engineer to provide 2
^
~
~
technical support for modification testing, reactor engineering, plant performance, process computer, regulatory and INPO interfaces, the LER program and commitment tracking.
A new position of Superintendent-Maintenance and Instrumentation and Controls will manage several assistant superintendents, engineers and supervisors in the consolidation of these two areas from the current organization.
The licensee proposes to delete eight pnsition designations on Figure 6.2-2 at the lower levels of the organization. The licensee states that all of the functions performed by these positions will be the responsibility of the organization which is shown on the proposed Figure 6.2-2.
This would nnt be inconsistent with the BWR Standard Technical Specifications which simply require that the figure show the lines of responsibility and organizational structure, i
l The licen::ee did not propose any change in the interim relief granted by amendments 126 and 129 regarding the holding of an SR0 license by either the Plant Manager or the Superintendent-Operations. Therefore, the relief provided by those amendments continues in effect and is shown on Figure 6.2-2.
J The licensee indicates that these onsite organization changes will establish a separation of responsibility that will better enable onsite management to concentrate their attention on each organizational function and I
will also delete various administrative duties from the Plant Manager, thereby j
allowing more focus on daily plant activities. All groups performing onsite activities which currently report to non-station organizations, except those involved in independent corporate assessment and oversight activities, will be integrated into the onsite station organization. The licensee states that this
. N will improve communications and coordination among the groups and will provide accountability to the site vice president.
III. Plant Operations Review Comittee (PORC)
The licensee proposes revisions to the PORC composition on TS page 246.
The Superintendent-0peratiors will replace the Manager-Nuclear Plant as Chairman. The other three Superintendents reporting to the Plant Manager wnvid e.lso be included. The Assistant Superintendent-Operations would replace the equivalent position of Operations Engineer. The Maintenance Engineer and the Technical Engineer positinns will continue on the PORC. The new position of Regulatory Engineer will be added. The Shift Manager would. replace the comparable current Shift Superintendent position. The licensee states that these changes in:raase the roles of maintenance and operations and will maintain a representation of technical disciplines required for the appropriate review of safety issues.
IV. Administrative Changes The licensee proposes miscellaneous changes which include: updating the
. title of the corporate safety committee to reflect current nomenclature on pages 261, 266 and'267; renumbering a list on page 248 to eliminate the duplication of an index inadvertently made in a prior amendment; removing a reference on page 248 to a paragraph specifying reporting times which was deleted by a previous amendment. These changes also include: extending Note 2 on Sheet 2 of Figure 6.2-2 to provide a reference to paragraph 6.1.1; amending the reporting requirements of Paragraph 6.7.1 to provide specificity to the required reporting times consistent with the requirements in the Standard Technical Specifications and the Limerick TS; and to add an "s" to O
the word Operation where PORC is spelled out on pages 246, 247, P48, 248a and 251. The changes requested in this miscellaneous category to delete several lower level positions from Figure 6.2-2 and to add a second sheet to Figure l
6.2-2 are addressed in Section II above. The licensee also proposed to delete I
the designation of the Nuclear Generation Division (NGD) Superintendent as being responsible for the overall fire protection program. This change was
-made in amendment number 39 and the licensee does not provide sufficient specificity in its application regarding how this responsibility will otherwise be met. Therefore this request is denied.
Designation of this responsibility-will remain with the VP-PBAPS which is the approximate level of responsibility to the NGD Superintendent in this regard. This denial is without prejudice should the licensee wish to revisit the issue.
The licensee indicates that these onsite organization changes will establish a separation of responsibility that will better enable onsite management to concentrate their attention on each organizational function and will also delete various administrative duties from the Plant Manager, thereby allowing more focus on daily plant activities. All groups performing onsite activities which currently report to non-station organizations, except those involved in independent corporate assessment and oversight activities, will be integrated into the onsite station organization. The licensee states that this will improve communications and coordination among the groups and will provide accountability to the site vice president.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Comission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Comission's regulations.
~
'^
A
/,,
O a
9 y
/ y
., p The Conmission Ls made a proposed determination that the amendment 1
reou'st involves no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's i
\\
)
,)
regulaticar in IO CFR 5N 92, tl h means that operation of the facility in 1
accordance with tha,!prmosed amendment would not (1) involve a significant herease in the probabtiity or consequences of an accident previously
'l
' ?
evaluated; or (2)' create 'the possibility of a new or different kuld of I actichrk Troe any accident previously eva'luated; cr (3) involve a significant reduction in a argin of safety.
(1) The changes discussed d'oove in Section I regarding the corporate organization are propased te saorten and strengthen the nuclear 4
operations chain of comand, provide an onsite corporate presence and ensure that all onsite employees,'except independent oversight functions, are accountable to the site vice president, establish support and engir.eering organizations that are focussed on nuclear related activities F
f
(
cM y, enhance and elevate Quality As.surance's role, strengthen the operating experience assessmend program and to strengthen the independent
./
assesment process. Accordingly, these changes are directed at bringing about improvements which will provide further control of and reduce the
\\\\
J<,
probability or consequences of the spectrum of accidents previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
For example, the reorganizedQualityAssurancefunctionundertheGeneralManager-Nuclear Quality Assurtnce will include an interfa:e of the QA activities at ear..n site with du-corporate QA group and the results are provided with a higher level of visibility.
Independent assessment of operational performance end trend analysis of performance will be performed and will have a higher t
,m-,%
p.
+
___ t L_ __ __ '
. level of visibility. Therefore, on the bases discussed above and in Section I the proposed changes will not result in an increase in the I
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
(2) The changes discussed above in Section I regarding the corporate organization do not involve any physical modifications in plant hardware, plant design or plant systems operation.
For this reason and for the reasons stated above in part (1) the proposed changes will not create.the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) The ob.iective of the proposed corporate reorganization is to change the organizational structure to increase control, accountability and corporate direction for nuclear operations, to strengthen self-assessment and problem resolution capabilities and to strengthen the independent i
assessment process. Since the proposed changes would be directed at providing the improved features and enhancements discussed in part (1) above, they do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
(4) The changes discussed above in Section II regarding the onsite organization are proposed to provide a strong corporate presence onsite; to provide separate management accountability and authority for plant operations through the Plant Manager, and outage management through the Project Manager; to ensure more attention and responsiveness to site training needs through the Superintendent-Training; and to provide strengthened management focus and accountability for critical station j
support functions through the Support Manager. The licensee states that this will eliminate various administrative responsibilities from the
Plant Manager, thereby allowing more focus on daily plant activities.
The proposed organization will further provide the Plant Manager with a staff that, as discussed in Section II above, will be expanded horizontally to include the Superintendents of Plant Services, Maintenance and Instrumentation and Controls, Technical and Operations.
This is directed at establishing a separation of responsibility that will enable concentration on each organizational function. The proposed organization will provirie better functionel grouping of related disciplines through the Superintendents of Plant Services and Maintenance, Instrumentation and Controls and will provide for onsite management of construction, field engineering, testing and Maintenance crafts.
The licensee states that the proposed organization under the Superintendent-0perations will establish additional supervisory positions, including implementation of the Shift Manager concept, and a division of responsibility. that will enhance management-operator interaction.
Flexibility would also be provided to accommodate periodic rotation and alternative career paths for shift personnel. This is directed at enhancing operator morale and motivation and improving the professionalism of the operations organization.
As stated in the licensee's application, the qualifications, education and training requirements for the positions in the proposed i
organization meet or exceed the requirements of ANSI N18.1-1971. The proposed changes would be implemented by changes to Technical Specification Figures 6.2-1 and 6.2-2, by changing the title of the e-I 4
Manager-Nuclear Plant to Plant Manager on TS pages 243, 246, 247, and 248; by adding the Plant Manager as the recipient of reports on TS paces 247, 248, and 248a; by chancing the reporting level from Superintendent-Nuclear Generating Division to Vice President-PBAPS, which is a corporate officer level position, on TS pages 247, 248, 248a, 249, 252, 252a, and 253; by adding an elevated level of reporting on TS pages 248 and 252; and by changing titles to reflect the proposed Superintendent-Training's position on page 246 and the Shift Manager's position on page 262.
The proposed changes do not involve physical changes in the design or operation of plant structures, systems or components.
For this reason and for the reasons discussed above and in Section II above, the proposed changes will not result in an increase in the probability or consequences.
of any accident previously evaluated.
(5) The changes discussed above in Section II regarding onsite organization do not involve any physical changes in the design or operation of plant structures, systems or components.
For this reason and for the reasons stated in part (4) above the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(6).As discussed in part 4 above the objective of the proposed onsite organization is to provide resources to strengthen the focus and accountability for plant activities, to provide better functional grouping of related disciplines and to enhance management-operator interaction and improve the professionalism of the operations l
l -
organization.
For these reasons and as discussed in Section II and part a above,.the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a inargin of safety.
(7) The changes discussed above in Section III regarding the Plant Operating Review Committee are proposed to increase the role of maintenance and operations; to decrease the role of disciplines not directly involved with operational safety; and to maintain a representation of the required technical disciplines. The proposed PORC composition also reflects the revised titles for certain positions. Therefore, on the bases discussed above and in Section III, the proposed changes will not result in an increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
(8) The changes discussed above in part 7 and Section III regarding the PORC do not involve any physical chances in the plant structures, systems and components.
For this reason and for the reasons stated in part 7 above the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
I (9) The objective of the proposed revisions are to reflect the enhancements that have been proposed for the onsite organizations and to increase the emphasis on the roles of maintenance and operations in the PORC reviews.
l l
The size of the PORC and the quorum requirements are unchanged. On these bases, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
I (10) The changes discussed above in Section IV include miscellaneous administrative revisions in nomenclature, corrections of errors, addition of a reference to another TS paragraph, and specification of a reporting
' '. l' time. The changes proposed by the licensee in this category dealing with deletion of-operations staff positions from the organization charts have i
been addressed in the onsite organization discussions above and those L
dealine with the responsibility for the fire protection program have been denied for the reasons stated in Section IV. The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing certain examples (March 6,1986, 51 FR 7744) of amendments that are not likely to involve a significant hazards consideration. These proposed changes are enveloped by example (1) which relates to purely administrative changes for correction of an error, changes in nomenclature and changes to achieve consistency. On this basis'these changes do not involve significant hazards considerations.
Based on the above discussions in Sections I, II, III and IV and Parts 1-10 the staff proposes to determine that the requested amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
Any coments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. The Comission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
Written comments should be addressed to the Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
z~
^
5 By January 22, 1988
, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene.
Request for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's " Rules 6f Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
If a
~
request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Comission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Comission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or 1
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the l
proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party l
l r~~~T
1.
l, Q C,
1 may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen
.(15) days prior'to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceedino,
' but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner.shall file a supplement to the
'etition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are p
~
sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect'to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations-in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Comission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendnent until the expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances chanoe during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would. result in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendnent involves no significant hazards
' consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for. opportunity for a hearing after issuance.
The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Att: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW
-Washington, D.C., by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inforn the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to Walter R. Butler, Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects I/II: petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the General Counsel, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and to Conner and Wetterhahn, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
20006, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, I
supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to.this action, see the application for amendment dated November 19, 1987, as supplemented by the licensee's Plan for-Restart,Section I, Corporate Action, dated November 25, 1987, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717
= H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the Government Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburo, Pennsylvania 17126.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 18th day of December 1987 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Walter R. Butler, Director
. Project' Directorate I-2
' Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations r
t W...
______.-..-_______-___----_Q