ML20215N534

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

ML20215N534
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	11/04/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8611060229
Download: ML20215N534 (28)

Text

g ,

~ g --

^'

s

, a . .

$ _ DISTRIBUTION Doctet File "

s .

9AmeeKPR'M November 4, 1986 T. Chan w/o enc 1

. C. Vogan w/o enc 1

- ' , DOCKET NO(S). 50-344 .

PDf3 Rdb. w/o enci n -

-See attached list of addressees

SUBJECT:

TROJAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT The following documents concerning our review of the su'bject facility are transmitted for yourinform'ation.

0 Notice of Receipt of Application, dated .

O Draft / Final Environmental Statment, dated .

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

O Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No. , dated .

O Notice of Hearing on Application for Construction Permit, dated .

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

~

O Monthly Notice;~ Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses involving no Significant Hazards Considerations, dated .

O Application and Safety Analysis Report, Volume .

O Amendment No. to Application /SAR dated O . Construction Permit No. CPPR- , Amendment No. dated .

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

O Order Extending Construction Completion Date, dated NN 'Other (Speci/y) Bi-Weekly Notice covering period through October 22. 1986. Expiration date dor hearing requests and connents; November 21. 1986.

Division of PWR Licensing-A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

As stated cc: See next page g9 PD#3 8611C60220 8611U4 pop fwg3 03000344 s CVogan P PD4 11/4/86

37502 Feder:I Regist:r / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, Octob r 22,~ 1986 / Notices 1

NUCLEAR REGULATORY Comments should be addressed to the litigated in the matter, and the bases for ,

COMMISSION Rules and Procedures Branch, Division each contention set forth with  !

of Rules and Records. Office of reasonable specificity. Contentions shall Bi-Weekty Notice; Applications and Administration. U. S. Nuclear be limited to matters within the scope of Amendments To Operating Ucenses Regulatory Commission Washington. the amendment under consideration. A Involving No Significant Hazards DC 20555, and should cite the petitioner who fails to file such a Considerations publication date and page number of supplement which satisfies these I. Background this Federal Register notice. requirements with respect to at least one By November 21.1986 the licensee contention will r~t be permitted to Pursuant to Public Law (Pub. L) 9N may file a request for a hearing with participate as a party.

415, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission respect toissuance of the amendment to Those permitted to intervene become (the Commission)is publishing this the subject facility operating license and parties to the proceeding, subject to any regular bi. weekly notice. Pub. L 97-415 any person whose interest may be limitations in the order granting leave to revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy affected by this proceeding and who intervene, and have the opportunity to Act of1954, as amended (the Act) to wishes to participate as a party in the participate fully in the conduct of the require the Commission to publish proceeding must file a written petition hearing. including the opportunity to notice of any amendments issued, or far leave to intervene. Requests for a present evidence and cross-examine proposed to be issued, under a new hearing and petitions for leave to witnesses.

provision of section 189 of the Act. This intervene shall be filed in accordance If a hearing is requested, the provision grants the Commission the with the Commission's " Rules of Commission will make a final authority to issue and make immediately Practice for Domestic Licensing determination on the issue of no effective any amendment to an Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. If a significant hazards consideration.The operating license upon a determination request for a hearing or petition for by the Commission that such final determination will serve to decide leave to intervene is filed by the above when the hearing is held.

amendment involves no significant date, the Commission or an Atomic if the final determination is that the hazards consideration, notwithsta,nding Safety and Licensing Board, designated amendment request involves no the pendency before the Commission of, by the Commission or by the Chairfnan a request for a hearing from any person.

significant hazards consideration. the of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission may issue the amendment This bi. weekly notice includes all Board Panel. will rule on the request amendments issued, or proposed to be and make it immediately effective, and/or petition and the Secretary or the notwithstanding the request for a issued, since the date of publication of designated Atomic Safety and Licensing hearing. Any hearing held would take the last bi-weekly notice which was Board willissue a notice of hearing or published on October 8.1986 (51 FR place afterissuance of the amendment.

an appropriate crder.

36081) through October 10,1980. As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a If the final determination is that the petition for leave to intervene shall set amendment involves a significant NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF hazards consideration, any hearing held ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO f rth with particularity the interest of would take place before the issuance of FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND the petitioner in the proceeding, and PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT h w that interest may be affected by the any amendment.

results of the proceedmg. The petition Normally, the Commission will not ilAZARDS CONSIDERATION issue the amendment until the DETERMINATION AND should specifically explain the reasons IU ermitted expiration of the 30-day notice period.

OPPORTUNITY FOR llEARING However, should circumstances change

'[IU"deshout during the notice period such that failure ne Commission has made a proposed following factors:(1) the nature of the determination that the followmg petitioner's right under the Act to be to act in a timely way would result, for amendment requests involve no made a party to the proceeding: (2) the example,in derating or shutdown of the significant hazards consideration. Under nature and extent of the petitioner's facility, the Commission may issue the the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR property, financial, or other interest in license amendment before the 50.92. this means that operation of the the proceeding: and (3) the possible expiration of the 30-day notice period.

facility in accordance with the proposed effect of any ceder which may be provided that its final determination is amendments would not (1) involve a entered in theroceeding on the that the amendment involves no significant increase in the probability or petitioner's interest. ne petition should significant hazards consideration. The consequences of an accident previously final also identify evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of subject matter of the specific aspect the proceedmg as to (s) of the c andpubh, determination State comments receivedwdl consider a a new or different kind of accident from which petitioner wishes to intervene. before action is taken. Should the any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Any person who has filed a petition for Commission take this action,it will involve a significant reduction in a leave to intervene or who has been publish a notice ofissuance and provide margin of safety.The basis for this admitted as a party may amend the for opportunity for a hearing after proposed determination for each petition without requesting leave of the issuance. ne Commission expects that amendment request is shown below. Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the the need to take this action will occur The Commission is seeking public first prehearing conference scheduled in very infrequently.

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

publication of this notice will be Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

considered in making any final the first prehearing conference Washington, DC 20555. Attention:

determination. The Commission will not scheduled in the proceedmg. a petitioner Docketing and Service Branch, or may normally make a l' mal determination shall file a supplement to the petition to be delivered to the Commission's Public unless it receives a request for a intervene which must include a list of Document Room 1717 H Street. NW.,

i hearing. the contentions which are sought to be Washington. DC. by the above date.

l

Federal Register / Vcl. 51, No. 204 / W:dn:sdiy, October 22, 1986 / Notices 37503 Where petitions are filed dunng the last bases for the proposed TS change will accident previously evaluated would not ten (10) days of the notice period, it is not be used to alter the current seem probable.The same acceptance requested that the petitioner promptly so requirement that all safety-related confidence level would seem to exist sa inform the Commission by a toll-free snubbers be operable or as justification currently exists in Farley TS's; (2) The telephone call to Western Union at (a00) to allow a snubber to remain in an possibility of a new or different kind of 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 3424700). inoperable condition. Furthermore, the accident imm any accident previously The Western Union operator should be conservative TS requirement to visually evaluated would not seem probable given Datagram Identification Number inspect 100% of the safety-related since no change to the physical number 3737 and the following message snubbers will not be altered. of snubbers la being considered. Thus, addressed to(Pmiect Director): The licensee has reviewed the existing design integnty, where petitioner's name and telephone requirements of 10 CFR 50.92 as they snubbers are involved, is not changed; numben date petition was mailed; plant relate to the proposed change to the and (3) The change would not involve a name; and publication date and page snubber visual Lspection requirements sigmficant reduction to the existing number of this Federal Registee notice. and considers u.e proposed change not margin of safety since the actions A copy of the petition should also be to involve a significant hazards required for failures of snubbers la sent to the Office of the General consideration. In support of this essentially unchanged. Therefore, the Counsel-Bethesda, U.S. Nuclear conclusion, the licensee's analysis is Commission proposes that a no Regulatory Commission, Washington, restated as follows: significant hazard consideration is in DC 20555. and to the attorney for the (1) The proposed change will not order for these changes pending licensee, significantly increase the probability or completion of our detailed evaluation.

Nontimely filings of petitions forleave consequences of an accident previously IocalPublic Document Room to intervene, amended petitions, evaluated because the existing snubber location: George S. Houston Memorial supplemental petitions and/or requests operability requirements will remain I.ibrary,212 W. Burdeshaw Street, for heanng will not be entertained intact and the proposed visual Dothan, Alabama 30303.

absent a determination by the inspection requirements will effectively A ttorney for licensee: Ernest 1. Blake, Commission, the presiding officer or the venfy snubber system reliability. Esquire. 2300 N Street, NW.,

presiding Atomic Safety and I.icensing (2) The proposed change will not {

Washington. DC 20037 Board. that the petition and/or request create the possibility of a new or should be granted based upon a different kind of accident from any NRCPm/ect Director Lester S.

Rub'"I'I"'

balancing of factors specified in to CHI accident previously evaluated because 2.714(a)(1)(iHv) and 2.774(d). the change will not alter plant Arizona Public Service Company et al, For further details with respect to this configuration or mode of operation. Docket No. STN 50-528, Palo Verde action, see the application for (3) The proposed change will not Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS),

amendment which is available for public involve a significant reduction to the Unit No.1, Maricopa County, Arizona inspection at the Commission's Public marFi n of safety because the Document Room.171711 Street. NW., Date of Amendment Request: August combination of visualinspection Washington DC, and at the local public intervals which maintain a 95% I'100 document room for the particular facility confidence that at least 90% of all De8cr/Puon ofAmendment Request-involved. safety-related snubbers are operable at The proposed amendment would modify all times along with the required the Technical Specifications (Appendix Alabama Power Company, Docket Nos. A to Facility Operating License No.

functional testing of safety-related 50-3la and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley NPF-41 for PVNGS Unit 1), for the Nuclear Plant Unit Nos.1 and 2, snubbers will provide adequate assurgnce that the snubber system will following Surveillance Requirements:

""'I" I' ^'" adequately perform its intended 4.8.4.3.f. 4.7.7.f. 4.7.8.f. and 4.9.12.f. %ese Date of amendments requesL* function. surveillance requirements relate to the September 2,1980. We have reviewed the licensee's charcoal dsorbers within the Description of amendments request: analysis and agree with it. In additicn, containment hydrogen purge system, the The proposed changes would modify the the Commission has provided examples control room essential filtration system.

visualinspection requirements for of amendments considered not likely to the Engineered Safety Features (ESP)

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

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

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

Statement for the snubber system TS's. changes:(1) A significant increase in the Basis forpmposedno significant The statistical methods employed as the probability or consequences of an hazards considerotion determinarian

37504 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices De Commission has provided Baltimore Ces & Electric Company, _ technical superiority to more than standards for determining whether a . Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert mitigate the increase in inspection time, significant hazards consideration exists Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.1 and as such. would not involve any as stated,in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed and 2, Calvert County, Maryland significant increase in the probability or amendment to an operating license for a consequences of an accident that was Date of applicationforamendments, facility involves no significant hazards previously evaluated.

July 31,1986 (partial response) considerations if operation of the facility Description of amendment request: (ii) Create the possibility of a new or in accordance with a proposed different type of accident from any The following proposed change to the amendment would not:(1) Involve a technical specifications (TS) is in partial accident previously evaluated.

significant increase in the probability or This proposal would not change the response to BG&E's application dated consequences of an accident previously RCP design or operation. It would evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of July 31,1986. The remaining issues will provide an improved method of be addressed in separate a new or different kind of accident from inspection for determining the presence any accident previously evaluated; or (3) correspondence.The proposed TS of any RCP flywheel degradation.

Involve a significant reduction in a change would modify the Units 1 and 2 TS Surveillance Requirement 4.4.10.1.1 Therefore, the performance of a visual margin of safety. RCP flywheel inspection in conjunction to link the completion of the reactor A discussion of these standards as with the licensee's RCP motor overhaul they relate to the amendment request coolant pump (RCP) flywheel follows; inspections to the licensee's RCP motor pmgram would not create the possibility overhaul program rather than requiring of a new or different accident.

Standard 1-Involve a Significant the completion of the RCP flywheel (iii) Involve a significant reduction in Increasein the Probability or inspection by the end of the inservice margin of safety.

Consequences of an Accident inspection (ISI) interval.%is The two-piece bolted flywheel design Pmviously Evalauted modification shall be only for the first is difficult to inspect through in. place ne proposed change only reduces the ISIinterval. All following RCP flywheel ultrasonic examinations.The proposed efficiency requirement of charcoal inspections shall be performed in visual RCP flywheel inspections, though adsorbers in ESF filtration systems from conjunction with the ISI program. performed over an extended time 99.95% to 99.0%. which is still greater Basis forpmposedno sigm/ scant' period, wou d provide an improved than the 95% efficiency assum;d in hazards consideration determmatwn; indication of the operability and FSAR accident analyses.The The Units 1 and 2 TS Surveillance degradation of the RCP flywheels. As amendment does not, therefore, Requirement 4.4.10.1.1 requires RCP such, this proposal would not involve a significantly increase the probability or flywheel inspections to be completed sigmficant reduction in a margin of consequences of an accident. during the 10. year inservice inspection safety.

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

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

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

The first to-year ISIintervals for both Washington, DC 20037.

Standard 3-involve a Significant Units 1 and 2 are scheduled for NRCProjectDimctor: Ashok C.

Reduction m a Margm ofSafety completion in April 1987 his proposed Thadani.

He requested amendment does not change would result in the completion of change any of the design bases for the the RCP flywheelinspections being plant. For this reason, the NRC staff has deferred to June 1990, and June 1991 for N s' 5 4 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,' Units 1 determined that the change does not Units 1 and 2, respectively, due to being ad Brunswick County, North involve a significant reduction in any margins of safety.

linked to the completion of the RCP motor overhaul program. [ na Based on the above considerations, The licensee evaluated the proposed Date of application for amendments:

the Commission proposes to determine change against the standards of10 CFR September 12.1988.

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

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

, AttorneyforLicensees:Mr. Arthur C. Inspections, the visual flywheel steam line isolation valves.

l Cebr. Snell & Wilmer,3100 Valley inspection conducted in conjunction The RCIC system steam line is l Center, Phoenix. Arizona 85007, with the RCP motor changeout in provided with both an inboard NRCPm/ect Director: George W. comparison to the conventionalin. place containment isolation valve (E51-F007)

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

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices 37505 F0081). Technical Specification 3/4.6.3 ruptured RCIC line would clearly be well and Trowbridge 2300 N Street NW.,

currently requires these isolation valves within limita estabhshed in 10 CHL 100. A Washington, DC 20037.

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

~

see nd ci sure time f r the isolation valve Muller.

time for these valves for the Brunswick w uld result, then,in a very small offsite facility has historica11y been between 18 dose.less than one-tenth the dose calculated Carolina Power and Light Company, and 20 seconds.Therefore, the licensee for the HpCI steam line break.ne change in Docket No. 50-261. H. B. Robinson is requesting the a!!owable isolation dose associated with the proposed change in Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, time be extended to 30 seccnds to RCIC isolation time from 20 to 30 seconds is Darlington County, South Carolina provide a measure of flexibility in the only a fraction of this smalldose.

surveillance testing.The proposed 2.ne proposed amendment does not Date of amendment request: August change is identical to that granted as create the possibihty of a new or different 28,1986.

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

Drunswick 2 license on June 10,1986. bec s ' The proposed amendment would revise 9,e,the c ang dR ' sy t o any Technical Specifications (TS) for the Basis forproposedno sigmficant other safety system. performs its safety hazards consideration determmation: function. Valve operability will continue to H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant. Unit The Commission has provided be ensured through periodic stroke testing to No. 2.The proposed change revises the standards for determir.ing whether a the 30 second limits. Technical Specifications to correct an significant hazards consideration exists 3.The proposed amendment does not editorial error in Section 3.3.1.2. In a in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed involve a significant reduction in a margin of previous amendment, several amendment to an operating license for a safety because the slight increase in the paragraphs were deleted from TS facility involves no significant hazards consequences of a RCIC steam line rupture Section 3.3.1.1 and subsequent h p paragraphs were renumbered. However, consideration if operation of the facility {hjg,co e'"jebyt un e d m' n in accordance with the proposed stream line or 10 inch HPClline rupture. As references to the renumbered amendment would not:(1) Involve a such, the extended RCIC stream line isolation paragraphs were inadvertently not significant increase in the probability or time does not present either a radiological or changed, thus creating incorrect consequences of any accident an environmental qualification concern. references.

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

accident from any accident previously %e NRC staff has reviewed the ne Commission has provided guidance evaluated; or (3) involve a significant licensee's analysis and concludes the in the form of examples of amendments reduction in a margin of safety. In the following. that are not considered likely to involve September 12,1986 submittal and in the 1. Operation of the facility in significant hazards considerations (51 June 4.1986 application for temporary accordance with the amendment would FR 7751). Example (i) states "a purely Amendment 126. the licensee has not increase the probability of an administrative change to the Technical provided an analysis of the proposed accident previously evaluated because Specifications: for example, a change to increase in RCIC isolation time relative the mode of operation of the plant is not achieve consistency throughout the to significant hazards considerations. As changed.The consequences of an Technical Specifications, correction of a result of this analysis, the licensee has accident previously evaluated are not an error or a change in nomenclature."

determined the following: significantly increased because as Since the proposed change will correct

1. The proposed amendment does not discussed above only a small effect is paragraph referencing. in order to involve a significant increase in the seen in an accident previously achieve consistency in the Technical probabihty or consequences of any accident determined to have minor consequences Specifications, the change is identical to previously evaluated. An analysis has been compared to the limiting accidents of Example (i). Therefore, the Commission performed which determined that extending this type, t.e., HPCI line break and main proposes to determine that this the allowable RCIC steam line isolation time amendment involves no significant

' ' " " ' " p stream line break.

2. Operation of the facility in hazards consideration.

use to es bhsh env nn nt qua cation LocalPublic Document Room at Brunswick.These profiles were accordance with the amendment would estabbshed based on a rupture of a 104nch not create the possibility of a new or location: Hartsville Memorial Library, itPCI hne with a 50weecond isolation time. different kind of accident because the Home and Fifth Avenues, Hartsvil!e, The amount of coolant lost in 3o seconds mode of plant operation is not changed South Carolina 29535.

through a break in the 3. inch RCIC steam line by the amendment. Attorney for licensee: Sha w. Pitunan, would be much less than that assumed for the 3. Operation of the facility in Potts, and Trowbridge 2300 N Street to inch itPCI kne break. Therefore, although accordance with the amendment would NW., Washington. DC 20037.

not involve a reduction in a margin of NRCProject Dimetorr Lester S.

C stea i nIres $ts a el n ea e in safety because the margins of safety the consequences of that accident, a rupture Rubenstem.

of the 10Linch IIPCI steam line remains the involved are determined from the more Carolina Power and Light Company, hmiting event for environmental quehfication severe cases of HPCIline break and Docket No. 50-261. H. B. Robinson purposes. 'the radiological effects of the main steam line break. Steam Electric Plant. Unit No. 2, estended RCIC isolation time have also been Based on this review. the staff Darungton County, South Carouna evaluated. Design basis accident dose therefore proposes to determine that the estimates at the site boundary are based on a proposed change does not involve a Date of amendment request main steam hne break.These estimates are significant hazards consideration. September 3,1986.

Description of amendment request:

Sall e by10$1N t$ e d s; LocalPublic Document Room location: Southport, Brunswick County The proposed amendment would revise estimate resulting from a rupture in the 10 inch IIPCI steam hne is approsimately 1/3 of Library,100 W. Moore Street, Southport, Technical Specifications ('13) for the that of a main stream hne break. Given the North Carolina 28401. H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant. Unit reduced loss of coolant through the 3. inch Attorneyforlicensee: Thomas A No. 2. The proposed revision involves a RCIC line. doses at the site bounJary due to a Daxter. Esquire, Shaw. Pittman. Potte change to Technical Specification 6.2.3

~

37506 Federal Regist:r / Vgl. 51. No. 204 / Wednesd:y. October 22, 1986 / N:tices to reflect a dual role of Senior Raactor NRCPm/ect Dimetor:lester Sr amendment is in response to that Operator (SRO) and Shift Technical Rubenstein. Generic Letter.

Advisor (STA)if anindividualholds a Carolina Power and Ught Company, it is the staff's intention to apply this SRO, license and also meets the Docket No.50-261 lt B. Robinson amendment to Byron Station. Unit 2.

requirements of the STA.The change is Steam Electric Plant. Unit No. 2, when it receives its operating license il based on the staffs Policy Statement on Darkngton County, South Carolina the amendment is found acceptable for Engineering Expertise on Shift (Generic Byron Station. Unit 1.

latter 86-01). Date ofomendment mquest* Bosisforpmposedno significont Basisforpmposedno significont SePfember 4.1986- hozords considemtion determinotion:

hozords considemtion determinotion: Description ofomendment request: The staff has evaluated this proposed

'Ihe Commission has provided The proposed amendment would revise amendment and determined that it standards for determining whether a Technical Specifications (TS) for the involves no significant hazards significant hazards consideration exists ILB. Robinson Steam Electric Plant. Unit considerations. According to 10 CFR (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed No. 2. The proposed revision adds to TS 50.92(c). a proposed amendment to an amendment to an operating license for a Section 6.13.1 a distance at which dose operating license involves no significant facility involves no significant hazards rates must be measured for determming hazards considerations if operation of consideration if operation of the facility whether an area is a High Radiation the facility in accordance with the in accordance with the proposed Area (llRA) or a Imcked High Radiation proposed amendment would not:

a c ng a o a the amendment would not:(1) Involve a g 1. Involve a significant increase in the

}

significant increase m the probability or probabilityor, consequences of an consequences of an accident previously definition and thus* will add clarity a accident previously evaluated; or evaluated;(2) create the possibility of a Q id misunderstanding of the existm. nd g

2. Create the possibility of a new or riew or different kind of accident from different kind of accident from any any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Basis forpmposedno significont horords consideration determination. accident previously evaluated; or involve a significant reduction in a 3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, ne Commission has provided guidance in the form of examples of amendments margin of safety.

The licensee has determined and the The proposed revision to th,e Ucense that are not considered to involve .

NRC staff agrees that the proposed Condition is in accordance with the significant hazards considerations (51 amendment wW n t: guidance provided in Generic Letter 86-FR 7751). Example (ii) states. "A change (1) Involve a significant increase in that constitutes an additionallimitation, 10 for Commonwealth Edison Company the probabihty or consequences of an requestmg removal of the Byron Station restriction or control not presently accident previously evaluated because Fire Protection Technical Specifications.

included in the technical specifications:

this request combines existing for example, a more stringent The proposed ucense Cond,ition is requirements and is not intended to surveillance requirement." The proposed virtually the sam as the ex3 sting ehnunate or reduce licensee change adds an 18 inch distance at Ucense Condition with mammal responsibilities. It is based on an NRC changes.The revision is proposed to be which the dose rates must be measured.

policy statement which encourages use his is clearly an additional requirement consistent with the NRC goal of of the dual-role position. NRC standardizing the Fire Protection and fits Example (ii) above.ne requirements are not being ehminated Program Ucense Conditions to ensure and, therefore, there is no increase in Commission therefore proposes to determine that this action involves no uniform enforcement of fire protection the probability or consequences of an significant hazards consideration. requirements.The change requested is accident previously evaluated. to the license condition which provides Loco /Public Document Room (2) Create the possibility of a new or locotionellartsulle Memorial Library, the guidelines for maintaining and different kind of accident from any llome and Fifth Avenues,liartsville, making changes to the Station's Fire accident previously evaluated because Protection Program and is not a change South Carolina 29535.

the request combines existing NRC A tromey for licensee: Shaw, Pittman, affecting the design or function of a requirement, without eliminating any Potts, and Trowbridge,2300 N Street particular feature of the fire protection already in existence. Therefore, no new NW., Washington. DC 20037. system. Since the Ucense Condition accidents could result from making this NRCProject Director:lester S. wording is virtually the same, the change. Rubenstein. change does not involve a sigiuficant (3) Involve a significant reduction in a increase in the probability or margin of safety because operation of Commonwealth Edison Company, consequences of an accident previously the facility with this change in place Docket No. STN 50-454, Byron Station, evaluated. It does not create the would not result in a significant Unit 1 Ogle County, Illinois possibility of a new or different kind of reduction in any margin of safety and no Date of applicofionfor amendment- accident from those previously NRC requirements are being eliminated. August 29,1986. evaluated. It also doesn't involve a Accordingly, the Commission Description of amendment request significant reduction in the margin of proposes to determine that the proposed The amendment would revise condition safety since the license condition still changes to the Technical Specifications 2.C(6) of the license issued February 14, requires that 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation for involve no significant hazards 1985, and would remove the Fire identification of unreviewed safety consideration. Protection Technical Specifications from questions be performed for each Loco /Public Document Room Appendix A of that license. Generic proposed change. With the proposed locotion liartsville Memorial Ubrary, letter 80-10 from the NRC, dated April license condition, as with the existing flome and Fifth Avenues,llartsville, 24,1966, provided guidance to licensees licensing condition, each change to the South Carolina 29535. to request a revised fire protection fire protection program will be A ttorney for licensee: Sha w. Pi ttma n, license condition and to request removal evaluated for its impact on the fire Potts, and Trowbridge,2300 N Street of the Fire Protection Techrncal hazards analists and the margin of NW., Washington, DC 200L17. Specifica tions. The licen see's proposed safety.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 2M / Wednesday. October 22, 1986 / Notices 3750'7 ne second revision requests the NRCProject Director: Vincent S. Accordingly, the Commission removal of the Fire Protection Technical Noonan. proposes that the changes would fall Specifications and the addition of into the category of a no significant

, Commonwealth Edison Company, certam admmistrative control Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, La Salle hazards consideration determination ,

since the changes are adnumstratim requirements. Removing the Fire County Station, Units 1 and 2. La Salle Protection Technical Specifications does County

• Illinois LocalPublic Document Room not increase the probability or location: Public I.ibrary of Illinois Valley consequences of an accident previously Dates of amendment request: Community College. Rural Route No.1, svaluated; the accident evaluated being December 20,1985, as amended by Ogeleby, Illinois 61348.

the postulated fire in the fire hazard and letters dated April 29, August 13, and A ttorney for licensee: Isham. Uncoln analysis documented in the Fire Septemb,er 3,1980. and Burke. Suite 840,1120 Connecticut Proteetion Report. Removing these Description of amendment mquest: Avenue, NW., Washington. DC 20036.

Technical Specifications does not alter He proposed amendments to Operating NRCProject Director: Elinor G.

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

The Technical Specifications provide NPF-18 would revise the La Salle Units requirements for fire protection of 1 and 2 Technical Specifications to Commonwealth Edison Company, reflect Commonwealth Edison's Docket Nos. 50-295 and 56-304, Zion h f shu n te a t.The p osed (licensee) management organizational Nuclear Power Station Unit Nos.1 and change does not remove or degrade changes both at the corporate level and 2 Benton County, Illinois Byron Station's administrative program. at the La Salle County Station as a Date of applicationfor amendments:

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

consistent with that currently existing indicates that au functi,ons performed by Description of amendments request:

will remain unchanged. Individuals meet the mimmum . These amendments will allow one ac pta 3 A new or different kind of accident battery charger assigned to a 125 V.D.C.

'2 gg 8 from that previously evaluated is not bus of a unit in either cold shutdown or created. The proposed change only *9 refueling to be used to fulfill the battery

[ ,'gp ,"f,'y$',"I of the original involves a transfer of the controlling lication, it was determined that the charger operability requirement of a mechanisms for the fire protection apfegation of authority permitted a D.C. bus of an operating unit. This will, de requirements from the Techmcal be accomplished by utilizin8 the crosstie Superintendent to approve overtime for Specification to Byron Station's breakers.

other departments and permitted ,

admmistrative program.De Fire . delegation of authority to authorize The need for this proposed change has Protection Program Ucense Condition overtime to a lower level supervisor. On developed from the planned ,

2.C(6) and the proposed changes to replacement of the Zion Station 1988 the licensee TechnicalSpecification Administrative September augmented it 3's app,lication b explicitly batteries.These batteries are being Control Section 6.0 requires that for any denoting the authority to ea h replaced as part of a program to upgrade proposed changes to the Fire Protection respective Superintendent and deleting and expand the capacity of Zion Program requirements, a 10 CFR 50.59 Station's safety-related battenes.The delegation to lower level supervisors. In evaluation be performed. In addition, an addition, the letters dated April 29 and two batteries dedicated to Unit 1 Jill onsite review involving personnel from August 13,1988, provided clarifying and 112) and the common battery (011) different cognizant functional areas will information in response to staff are scheduled to be replaced during the also be required to review any proposed questions. current Unit 1 refueling outage.

changes to the Fire Protection Program. Basis forproposedno significant This change does not alter the intent Therefore, individual changes will hazards consideration determination: of the current Technical Specifications.

continue to be evaluated for their impact The original request of December 20, Section 3.15.2.e already allows the use on the fire hazards analysis. 1985, was noticed in the Federal Register of a D.C. bus from a unit in either cold The proposed change does not involve (51 FR 3711) on January 29,1980. In shutdown or refueling to fulfill the a reduction in the margin of safety since augmenting its application to explicitly operability requirements of the opposite it is administrative in nature and does denote that each Superintendent only unit. inadvertently, this logic was not not involve a particular change to the approves overtime for their own transferred to Section 3.15.2.f. These fire hazards analysis previously department, the licensee revised its proposed amendments will achieve documented. Each individual change original request by letter dated consistency between the intent of will continue to be evaluated separately September 3,1986. This revision was Section 3.15.2.e and Section 3.15.2.f and for its impact on the margin of safety, substantial enough to require renoticing are a clarification of the existing The proposed revision will ensure that the requested amendments. This change Technical Specifications.

adequate review of proposed changes to specifies the authority for authorizing Basisforproposedno significant the Fire Protection program continues to overtime in accordance with the staff's hazards consideration determination:

be performed. requirements. The Commission has provided Based on the preceding assessment. The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a the staff believes this proposed guidance concerning the application of significant hazards consideration exists amendment involves no significant the standards for determining whether a [51 FR 7751 (March 6,1986)]. A proposed hazards considerations. significant hazards consideration exists amendment to en operating license for a Loca/ Public Document Room by providing certain examples ($1 FR facility involves no significant hazards location: Rockford Public Library,215 N. 7744). Example (i) stated, "A purely consideration if og.eration of the facility Wyman Street, Rockford. Illinois 61103. administrative change to the Technical in accordance with the proposed A ttorney for licensee: Michael Miller, Specifications." These proposed amendment would not:(1) Involve a Isham. Lincoln & Deale. One First amendments fall under this example significant increase in the probability or National Plaza 42nd Floor, Chicago, since these changes are administrative conseguences of an accident previously I!!inois 60603. In nature. evaluated:(2) create the possibility of a

l

. . 1 37508 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No 204 / Wednesday. October 22, 1986 / Notices  ;

new or different kind of accident from A ttorney to limnsee: P. Steptoe. Esq., after issuance of the NRC's approval of any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Isham. Uncoln and Beale. Counselors at Revision 4 to the BWROG EPGs.

involve a sigmficant reduction in a Law, Three First National Plaza,51st Basisforproposedno significant margin of safety. Floor, Chicago, D1inois 00602. hozards consideration detennination:

The Ucensee provided the following NRCPmject Director: Steven A. The Commission has provided discussion regarding the above three Varga. standards for determining whether a criteria: significant hazards consideration exists Detroit Edison f'ampany, Docket No. 50-criterion 341, Fermi.2, Monroe County, Michigan (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating bcense for a ne operating unit will have three batteries Dates of amendment request: June 19

• d facility involves no significant hazards

,"aihb5 a d July 31,1988 consideration if operation of the facility t I re has Descriptmn ofomendment request- in accordance with the proposed been no change in the availability or quality of the DC control power available to the This proposed amendment,if approved. amendment would not:(1) involve a operatmg Zion reactor, would revise the Fermi.2 Operating significant increase in the probability or Smce there has been no degradation in the Ucense No. NPF-43 by modifying an consequences of an accident previously integnty of Zion's electrical system. then all item in Attachment 2 to the license. evalua ted; or (2) create the possibibty of safety.related systems will operate as Ucense Condition 2.C(17) requires the previously evaluated. nus, there will be no a new or different kind of accident from licensee to complete the required an accident previously evaluated; or (3) ange th con mm of any accident emergency response capabilities as 9 ], involve a significant reduction in a Based upon the above discussion this described in Attachment 2 to the Ferml- margin of safety, proposed amendment does not involve a 2 license.ltem 1(a) of Attachment 2 The licensee has determined, and the significant increase in the probability oe presently requires the bcensee to staff agrees, that the requested consequences of any accident previously submit, prior to November 30,1988, a evaluated. summary report of its detailed control amendments per 10 CFR 50.92 do not: (1) involve a significant increase in the Criterion 2 r m design review (DCRDR).

An additionalitem in Attachment 2, probability or consequences of an As discussed above, the use of the crosstie accident previously evaluated because breakers to allow the battery charger item 3(a),is addressed in the licensee's the design of the control room has been assigned to a shutdown unit to be utilized to two submittals cited above. Item 3(a) reviewed several times by the licensee fulfill the operability requirements of the required the bcensee to provide, prior t opposite, operating unit has no effect on any July 31.1988, a procedures generation to determine whethe.r there were any of Zion's system nor on the operation package (PGp) for NRC staff review and human factors deficiencies.'Ihe steff conditions of the Zion reactors. In addition. approval. The licensee submitted reviewed this effort and issued the rehabihty and integnty of the Zion information on this matter in its letter favoraWe evabab,ons in supplements to electncal system will be unaltered.nus the the SER: the most recent favorable possibihty of a new or different kind of dated July 31,1988.The staff will address this item at a later date. evaluation is contained in Supplement 5 intemally generated accident cannot be to the SER issued in March 1985.

created. In its letter dated June 19,1986, the Because the originallicense condition ne use of the 125 V.D.C. bus crossties has licensee stated that the absence of no effect on the generation of any external approved generic emergency procedures was predicated on these favorable event. That is, there is no connection guidelines (EPGs) prevented it from initial evaluations and contemplated a between the shgnment of the D.CL eystem and conducting the DCRDR on the schedule limited time interval before completion the susceptibihty of Zion Station to such required by item 1(a) of Attachment 2 to of the DCRDR, the proposed limited extemal events as earthquakes, tornadoes, extension of the date for completion of and floods. the Fermi.2 license. Specifically, the the DCRDR does not in itself change the Based upon the above discussion, this staff requirement is tiist the Iicensee - basis for the license condition nor proposed change does not create the Perform the DCRDR in accordance with possibility of a new or different kind of approved EPGs.These EPGs are introduce a significant change in accident from any acddent previously currently being developed by a BWR circumstances relating to the safe evaluated. Owners Group (BWROG) with the most operation of the plant; or (2) create the recent version identified as Revision 4. possibility of a new or different kind of Cnterion 3 As discussed above, there w.ll The licensee is a member of this Owners accident previously evaluated because i be three the limited extension of time to complete Group. Because the submittal date of op ratY2u1n t nYt buse a$labt for Revision 4 of the BWROG EPGs has the DCRDR does not change,the type of the shutdown unit. Thus, the operating unit been delayed by about ten months from potential accidents which might occur remains capable of withstanding a postulated the original estunate of December 1985, due to human errors during the proposed

single failure at all times. nerefore. this the date established in item 1(a) (i.e., extended interim period; or (3) involve a proposed change does not reduce the margin November 30,1986) for submittal of the significant reduction in a margin of

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

Commission proposes to determine that letter dated june 19.1986, which would Based on our review of the proposed the proposed changes to the Technical delay submitting the summary report of modifications, the staff finds that there Specification involve no significant the DCRDR until July 31,1987. This exists reasonable assurance that this hazards consideration. request for a license amendment was proposed change will have little or no LocalPublic Document Room subsequently modified in the licensee's impact on the public health and safety.

! location: Waukegan Public IJbrary, letter of July 31,1986, to make the Accordingly, the Commission proposes 128N County Street, Waukegsn. Illinois submittal date a floating milestone to determine that the requested change 80085. br nei on an interval of eight months to the Fermi-2 Operating License

Federal Register / Vol. St. No. 204 / Wednesday. October 2?,1986 / Notices 37500 involves no significant hazards Trowbridge. 2300 N Street NW., of SBLOCA due to stuck open PORV consideration. Washington, DC 20037. must be less than .001 per reactor year LocalPUMir Document Room NRC Project Director Lester S. and that less than 5% of high pressure location: htonroe County Ubrary R ubenstein. - trips are allowed to open the PORV.

System. 3700 South Custer Road, Florida Power Corporation, et al., c ntinue to be met following these hionroe, hiichigan 48101. Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit changes, ne licensee has reviewed Attorneyfor the Licensee: John Flynn- Topical Report and the Commission,the s No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant. Citrus Esq., The Detroit Edison Company,2000 County' Florida Safety Evaluation and has verified that Second Avenue. Detroit. hiichigan 4890s. they are applicable to Crystal River Unit NRCProject Director: Elinor Date of amendment request: lune la, 3 (CR-3).

Adensam. 1986, as amended July 23,1986. Change 2-Add Anticipatory Reactoe Descnpt on of amendment aquest: 37;p, Duquesne Light Company, Docket No. The proposed amendment would revise The proposed change requests that the 50-334. Beaver Valley Power Station. the Technical Specificatfons lTSs) to: (1) specif cations for the Reactor Protection Unit No.1, Shippingport Pennsylvania Raise the Reactor High Pressure Trip System instrumentation be changed to Date of amendment request: July 25, t s gto ig, and add new reactor trips.These new efpo ,

Description of amendment request: (ARTS) for trips of both main feedwater (a) Anticipatory ReactorTrip-both The proposed amendment would change pumps and the main turbine. main feedwater pumps, and Tables 3.3-3 and 4.3-2 of the Technical p[, '

T 8h (b) Anticipatory ReactorTrip-main Specifications to comply with Revision 5 Subsequent to the ntI-2 accident, the turbme.

of the Westinghouse Standard Technical Commission's staff required certain ne ART on trip of both main Specifications (WSTS). Specifically, the changes to Reactor Protection Systems feedwater pumps will be armed operational modes under which three intended to reduce challenges to and whenever reactor power is equal to or steam isolation signals (manual, opening of the power operated relief greater than 20% of full power, and the automatic actuation logic and high main turbine tnp willbe armed steam pressure rate) are required to be valve (PORV). I'or Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) reactors, those changes included whenever reactor power is equal to or operational and surveyed would be lowering the Reactor Itigh Pressure Trip greater than 45% of full power.This specified as hiodes 1. 2 and 3. Currently' setpoint from 2355 psig to 2300 psig and request is made in response to NUREG-these signals are required to be implementing a safety grade automatic 0737, Item II.K.2.10, and Genen,c Letter applicable to hiodes 1,2,3 and 4 (hot ART for, among other things, a turbina 82-16 dated September 20,1982.

shutdown). trip. ne Commission's guidelines were Subsequent to the Tht!-2 accident, the

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

isolation is not needed during hiode 4 as B&W has submitted Topical Report The proposed TSs are in accordance discussed above. Thus, the apparent BAW-1890, " Justification for Raising with the sample TSs given in Generic relaxation in operational and Setpoint for Reactor Trip onitigh Letter 82-18. except for the arming surveillance requirements in reality does Pressure." The CommWs staff has threshold of the turbine ARTS.The not result in any real change that affects reviewed this report and in its Safety arming threshold for the turbine ARTS is plant operation.The requested Evaluation found it acceptable for based on B&W Topical Report BAW-amendment does not increase the referencing in license applications. This 1893 " Basis for Raisirq Arming probability or consequences of an Topical Report provides justification Threshold for Anticipatory Reactor Trip accident previously evaluated, will not that a number of high pressure on Turbine Trip " The Commission's create the possibility of a new type of transients would not have resulted in a etaff has reviewed this Topical Report accident or malfunction of a different reactor trip if more margin had been and in its Safety Evaluation found it type from any previously analyzed, and available to the High Pressure Trip acceptable for use in license will not decrease any margin of safety. setpoint.The analyses presented applications. The licensee has reviewed Therefore. the staff proposes to demonstrate that when the Reactor fligh the Topical Report and the Safety characterize the proposed amendment Pressure Trip setpoint is raised to 2356 Evaluation and determined their results as involving no significant hazards psig (the original firen=<t value) and the to be applicable to CR-3.

consideration. arming threshold for ARTon turbine trip As demonstrated in the Topical loco / Public Document Room is raised to 45% power, a reduction in Repott. establishing the arming locotion: B. F. lones Memorial Library, total reactor trip frequency of about 10% threshold for the ART on turbine trip at 663 Franklin Asenue. Aliquippa, is expected. Reductions in reacter trip 45% full power with Reactor liigh Penns>lvania 15001. frequency will contribute to overall Pressure Trip set at 2355 psig will Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald plant safety as well as plant avallability. continue to meet NUREC-0737 Charnoff Esquire. lay P Silberg. Furthermore, Commission guidelines guidelines regarding PORV challenges Esquire, Shaw, Pittman. Potts, and regarding the PORV, that the probability and PORV opening,nere may be

37510 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices e.vpected to be an overall reduction in Change 2 Loca/Public Document Room reactor trips and the attendant location Crystal River Public 1.ibrary, challenges to safety systems with these 668 m Erst Avenue, CWal h, de ina ion th whic! the Florida 32629.

reactor prot?ction setpoints. Commission agrees.

Basis forproposedno significant Attorneyforlicensee: R. W. Nenser, hazards considemtion determination: The Commission has provided. Senior Vice President and General guidance concerning the application of Counsel, Florida Power Corporation.

ChangeJ standards for determm,m, g whether a P.O. Box 14G12. St. Petersburg. Florida These proposed changes have been significant hazards consideration exists 33733, reviewed against each of the criteria in by providimt certam examples (51 FR NRCProject Director: John F. Stolz.

to CFR 50.92, namely, that the proposed 7751) of amendments thrd are changes would not: considered not likely to involve CPU N'y!aar Corporation, et al., Docket (1) Involve a significant increase in significant hazards consideration. No. 50-239 Three Mile I land Nur. lear the probability or consequences of an Example (ii) relates to a change that Station, Urit No.1, Dauphin County, accident previously evaluated; or constitutes an additional limitation, Pennsylvania (2) Create the possibility of a new or restriction or cortrol not presently Date of arrendment request: May 12.

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

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

(3) Involve a significant reduction in a example (ii). Description of amendment request margin of safety. Adding ARTS on trip of both main NRC Generic Letter (G.L) 83-43 dated With regard to criterion (1) above. feedwater pumps, or on trip of the main December 19.1983, requested licensees since 2355 psig is the design Reactor turbine is a reactor control functice not to amend their Technical Specifications liigh Pressure Trip setpoint, the original presently included in the TSs.The (TSs) to reflect changes in reporting Final Safety Analysis Report analyses proposed TSs are in accordan e with' requirements of 10 CFR 50, il 50.72 and remain applicable for this setpomt. the guidance of Generic !.etter 82-16 50.73. A model TS was enclosed Analyses applicable to CR-3 have been except for the arming threshold of the showing revisions to be made in the performed which demonstrate that the main turbine ART.The main turbine' " Administrative Control" and guidelines on which the 7evious ART arming threshold was chosen ' " Definitions" tections of the TSs.The reduction of Reactor lii, Pressure Tn.p based on B&W analyses that have been genenc letter further requested that setpoint were based will continue to be reviewed and accepted by the other conforming changes to TSs be met at the higher (onginally licensed) Commission's staff in its Safety made in order to reflect the revised setpoint. Therefore, increasing the Evaluation dated April 25,1986.The reporting requirements.

Reactor liigh Pressure Trip setpoint licensee has reviewed the B&W analysis The purpose of this TS Change from 2300 psig to 2355 psig does not and Commission's Safety Evaluation Request (TSCR)is to revise the reporting significantly increase the probability or and has verified they are applicable to consequences of an accident previously re9uirements of the TSs for Tht!-1 to be CR-3* consistent with the rule changes m-10 evaluated Based on the above, the amendment CFR 50.72 and 50.73. In addition, the With regard to criterion (2) above, this "III " I TSCR incorporates other administrative change returns the Reactor liigh . .

Pressure Trip serpoint to the value for 1. Involve a significaat inc: rase in the changes affecting the same TS pages as which the plant was originally licensed. probability or consequence of an modified by the above-mentioned The function of the setpoint is not accident previously etmuated. Adding generic letter.

altered as a result of the change (i.e., the these specifications places an addihonal Administrative changes made in setpoint still serves the purposes of restriction on the operation of CR-3 that addition to those specificell/made in assuring the integrity of the Reactor will shut the reactor down in ersponse to G.L 85-43 involve the Coolant System as a barrier against the anticipation of a reactor high pressure following:

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

reducing challenges to the PORV). these events from producing a etallenge b. Clarification of TS section e.10.2 by Therefore, increasing the Reactor liigh to the Reactor Coolant System PORV. in,erting the words ". . . unless Pressure Trip setpoint from 2300 psig to 2. Create the possibihty of a new or otherwise specified in 6.10.1 above."

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

that this setpoint change meets the accident. c. Deletion of Specification 6.10.2.n Commission's guidelines regarding 3 Involve a significant reduction in concerning the retention of equipment PORV openings and PORV-caused the rnargin of safety. ARTS provide an qualification records, as these SBLOCAs. Returning the Reactor liigh additionst safety function which requirements are addressed by Pressure Trip setpoint to 2355 psig will increases the margin of safety relative to regulation in 10 CFR 50.49.

reduce the frequency of automatic trips, tunnients which have a probability of d. Designation of the appropriate

! and thus decrease the number of itsulting in an overpressure condition in individual responsible for maintaining challenges to plant safety systems. the Reactor Coolant System. administrative control of keys to locked Therefore, increasing the Reactor liigh Based on the above, the Commission barricades specified in 6.12.1.b.

l l

Pressure Trip setpoint from 2300 psig to proposes to determine that the proposed e. Deletion of tfie reference to 2355 psig does not involve a significant amendment does not involve a Regulatory Guide (R.G.) 10.1 from reduction in a margin of safety. significant hazards consider 6 tion. Specification 6.9.1.C concerning the l

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wednesday October 22, 1986 / Notices 37511 distribution of the Monthly Operating consistency. correct errors, change ne Commission's staff has reviewed Report. nomenclature, and improve clarity. the licensee's proposed arnendment and

f. Clarification of Specification 6 IL3 to Based on the above. the Commission associated analysis of no significant specifiy more clearly the approval makes a proposed determination that hazards considerations. Based upon this process for temporary changes to the this amendment request does not review, the staff concurs with the procedures of 6.8.1. This change is to involve significant hazarde licensee's analysis on the three remove the ambiguity of the current considerations. standards and proposes to determine wordmg.

l.ocalPublic Documens Room that the amendment does not involve a

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

special reports in Specification ea3. Section. State 1.ibrary of Pennsylvanie. LocalPublicDocument Room

h. Correction of format grammar. Education Building. Commonwealth and location: Covemment Publications misspellings, and other enors from Walnut Streets, ifarrisburg, Section. State 1.ibrary of Pennsylvania, previous amendments and addition of Pennsylvania 17126. Educatioe Building. Commonwealth and language to improve clarity of theTSs. Attomeyforlicensee Emest L B!ake. Walnut Streets. Harrisburg,

i. Clarification of TS reporting requirements and/or bases to be Jr.. Pittman. Potts and Trowbridge. 2300 Pennsylvania 17126.

N Street. NW Washington. DC 20037 Attomeyforlicensee- Ernest L Blake.

consistent with Standard TSs. fr., Shaw. Pittman. Potts and This amendment request was A'RCProfect D!mctor: John F. Sto!z.

originally published in the Federal CPU Nuclear Corporation.et al, Docket Trowbridge,2300 N Street. NW' Register on July 2.1986 (51 FR 24256). Washington. DC 20037 No. 50-289. Three Mile Island Nuclose Since then, the licensee has submitted a Strtion. Unit No.1. Dauphin County, NRCPmfectDirector: John F. Stolz.

supplement in response to NRC Pennsylvania CPU Nuclear Corporation.et al Docket comments conceming appropriate TS No. 50-289. Three Mile Island Nuclear language and to ensure changes are Date of amendmentrequest July 29 1986 (TSCR No.151). as supplemented Station. Unit No.1. Dauphin County, consistent with Standard T5s. All August 21.1980. Pennsylvania supplemental TS changes are within the Description of amendment reguest Date of amendment request: August fosfsforpro Primardy, the proposed amendment 25,1986, as supplemented October 1 s nos$ n$ficant would change ano delete certain unit 1986.

hazanis considention determination:

The Commission's staff has reviewed staff organizational udes or Descripdon ofamendment requese the licensee's no significant hazards responsibilities identified in Section e of The Fuel Handling Building (FHB) Air consideration determination and agrees the Technical Specifications (T3s) for Treatment System contains. controls, with the licensee *s analysis. %e Three Mile Isfand Noclear Station. Unit mitigates, monitors, and records Commission has provided guidelines No.1. More specifically. Techmcal radiation releases which might resuk pertaining to the application of the three Specification Change Request (TSCR) from a TMI-1 postulated spent fuel no significant hazards consideration No.151 reorganizes the P! ant Operations accident in the FilB. As a result of a standards by listing specific examples in department, retitles the Radiological 1.icensing Board decision in the TMI-1 51 FR 7751. Part of the proposed Controfs Forman, deletes the position of restart proceeding. CPU Nuclear amendment is being made to comply Training Coordinator, and deletes

• Type Corporation (CPUNIis installing an with reporting requirements in to CFR of License reference fmm the engineered safety feature (ESP) filtration 50.72 and 50.73.This portion of the organization chart. The type of license system for the Unit 1 side of the FIIB, proposed amendment is in the same required for certain operators is not The new system. as described in category as example (vij} of being changed. Rather the reference to CPUN's submittals to the NRC dated amendments that are considered not the required license is being deleted March 27.1988 and October 1.1988.is hkely to involve significant hazards fr m the organization chart. expected to be operational around consideration,i.e a change to make a Basisforpmposedno significant November 1.19886 The detailed system l

license conform to changes in the hazards considemtion determinationr descriptions were not submitted as part regulations, where the license change Pursuant to the provisions of to CIT of the amendment request (i.e. not part 50.91 the licensee has provided the results in very minor changes to facility of the separate submittals dated August l operations clearly in keeping with the following determination of no significant 25.1988, as supplemented October 1.

regulations. hazards considerations using the 1988). However, they do form part of the The remaining portions of the standstd criteria prescribed by to CFR basis of the NRC review on this amendment serve to delete reports no 50.92[c!: amendment.

longer required by the NRC. delete TS 1.He proposed changes do not affect %is proposed amendment:(1) requirements superseded by regulations, plant equipment or systems and Prosides additional requirements for clarify ambiguity in wording, designate therefore will not involve a significant operation and testing of the new FHB individuals responsible for maintaining increase in the probability or ESF AirTreatment System which are administrative control of keys tolocked consequences of an accident previously adequate to protect against accidents birricades. delete out-dated report evaluated or involving the handling ofirradiated fuel distribution requirements, delete 2. The proposed changes do not a'fect in the FHB:(2) reduces some of the

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

37512 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 2c4 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices As tiessorably Achievable (ALARA): Attorneyforlicensee: G. F. existina commitments p sently being cnd (3) includes administrative or Trowbridge. Sha w, Pittman. Pot's and adhered to. De River Bend Station Unit 1 editorial changes for clarity. Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW., Facihty Operating Ucense (NPF-471 currently Basis forpwposedno significant Washington. DC 20037. **"'gk*n't seY us're$nt as hozords considerotion determination:

y,p NRCPmject Director:lohn F. Stolz. incorporated within the license. By The Commission has provided Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket implementing the recommendatiors of standards for determining whether a anisiori 2 of Appendix !! cf the TI)] DRQR significant hazards consideration exists No.50-458, River Bend Station Unit 1 West Feliciana Parish,14uisiana Report. GSU will be implementog a program cs stated in to CFR 50.92. A proposed that has undergone extensive industry and cmendment to an operating license for a Date of amendment request: August 4, regulatory review. (Re:" Safety Esatuation facility involves no significant hazards 1986 as amended August 15,1986 and Report Re ne Operability /Reliabihty of the consideration if it meets three standards supplemented on September 26,1986. Emergency Diesel Generators Manufactured as described in 10 CFR 50.92. De Description of amendmentrequest by Tran otati n,samerica Delaval.Inc.-RiverBend Commission's staff has reviewed the Amend Attachment 111 and Technical -W. R. Butler to W. J. Cahill. Jr licensee's proposed determination and Specification 3/4-8.1.1 of the River Bend ,, d! 'p sed g' d*'lld ct er ge' th ')e h icp c{ ons to is in agreement with the licensee's Station Operating License, hTF-47, to be consistent with the commitments in the conc!usion. Each standard is discussed revise the provisions on maintenance for Facility operating License.

in turn. the TDI emergency diesel generators. nus. no new or different kind of accident Standard 1-The proposed his revision willimplement the scenano is introduced.

cmendment would not involve a recommendation of Revision 2 of The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or Appendix 11 of TDI Diesel Generator significant reduction in the margin of safety consequences of an accident previously Owners Group Design Review and because the change makes the Technical cvaluated.The design basis accident for Quality Revalidation (DRQR) Report Specifications consistent with the approved the FIIB ESF Air Treatmer.t System is a (submitted May 1,1986). NRC staff fuel drop accident. Operation of this Q'u cy n man 7ac'tu  ! he I evaluation of the DRQR is documented diesel generators for nu,: lear standby sersice system and the Auxiliary and FIIB Air in Supplement 3 of the River Bend SER.

Treatment System in accordance with is within the range normally assumed for Basisforpmposedno significant diesel engines designed and manufactured in this proposed amendment would not horcrds considemtion determination: accordance with General Design Criterion interfere with fuel handling operations The Commission has provided (GDC)17 and to CMt 50, Appendix B.

and would not increase the probability standards for determining whether a cf the accident.%e new system would significant hazards consideration exists Thus, there is not a significant cdd f;ltrabon redundancy, would not ' eduction in the margin of safety, as stated in to CFR 50.92. A proposed A

' ccordingly, based on the licensees reduca filtrat on capacity, and therefore amendment to an operating license for a would not increase the consequences of findings with which the staff concurs' facility involves no significant hazards cn accident, the staff has made a proposed considerations if operabon of the facility determination that the application Standard 2-%e proposed in accordance with a proposed cmendment would not create the involves no significant hazards possibility of a new or different kind of amendment would not:(1) Involve a iderati significant increase in the probability or cccident from any accident previously consequences of an accident previously

• $co/ Pub $c DocumentRoom t se la in sgn e u d a r fe n d o acc ent from aton configuration to other such systems. any accident previously evaluated; or (3) "8 *I an 7 '

Therefore, optration in accordance with inis proposed amendment would not Invo!" ifi t educti in ##!# " I "*

Jr., Esq, Conner and Wetterhahn,1747

• • f t ennshania Avene, W, create new or different accidents from T licensee as provided the ha 1 sta at on f the: w system aIbeen evaluated by the hcensee who o ,ha$* it u t 4,1 6 R /cD r: Walter R.

request for a license amendment which Buth has concluded that the new system will not affect the seismic capabil;ty of the was supplemented by its September 26, Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket buildi,g to whfch it is attached. 1986 submission. No. 50-458 River Bend Station, Unit 1 Standard 3 The proposed De proposed change does not involve a West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana I tmendment would not involv'e a significant increase in the probabihty or Date of amendment request: August significant reduction in a margin of c nsequences !an occident previous y 29,1988.

' "' 'I safety.De propoaed changes provide In e up Des escription of amendment request cn increased margin of safety by 't snd Qaahty Revalidation (DRQR1 Report requires Technical,Specifica, tion 3 5.3, providing a separate ESF Air Treatment inspections that are more thorough than the Suppression Pool, establishes the System. Inspections currently being performed in Limiting Conditions for Operation for Based on the above discussions, the cecordance with manufacturers operability of the suppression pool. This Commission proposes to determine that recommendations. GSU's commitment to the amendment request adds the the proposed amendment would not DRQR Report is designed to increase Suppression Pool Pumpback System involve a significant hazards reliabihty of the Division I and il diesel (SpPS) to Technical Specification 3.5.3 to consideration. generators, Loco /Public Document Room 'Itus. there is no increase in the probability ensure it is considered as required equipm nt for suppression pool location: Government Publications [,*[",*tduences of any accident previously op,,,3;;ggy, Section. State Library of Pennsylvania- The prop' osed change does not create the During the development of the Education Building. Commonwealth and possibility of a new or different kind of Technical Specifications for the full Walnut Streets. Harrisburg, accident from any accident p 'viously power license, CSU committed in a Pennsylvania 17126. evaluated because the change clarifies letter dated November 18,1985 (RBG-l F

Federal Register / Vol. 51 No. 2M / Wednesday. October 22. 1986 / Notices 37513 22022) to include the SPPS as part of the made a proposed determination that the of accident from any accident previously River Bend Technical Specifications to application involves no significant evaluated; or (3) involve a signiikant .

clarify that SPPS is a twcessary hazards consideration. reduction in a margin of safety, subsystem to ensure opefability of the LocoIPub/tc Document Room The staff has reviewed the licensee's suppression pool.The NRC staff Location: Government Documents request and finds that the proposed requested the development and use of Department. Louisiana State University, amendment:

limiting conditions for operation, Baton Rouge Louisiana 70803. (1) Does not involve a significant suneillance requirements, and bases. Attorneyforlicensee: Troy B. Conner, Ir.. Esq., Conner and Wetterhahn.1747 i i th b bil The application for arnendment is to consequences of an acci ent previously satisfy the GSU commitment to include Pennsylvama Avenue.NW, Washington. DC 20006. evaluated because the verification of the provisions governing the SpPS as d be b d part of the River Bend Technical RCProject Director: Walter R. ,',c nt e o r d insert on from fully Specifications. er. g g g Basisforproposedno significonf Iowa Electric Light and Power Company. from fully withdrawn provided the hazards consideration determinotwn: Docket No.50-331.Duane Arnold scram insertion times correspond to The Comrmssion has provided Energy Center. Linn County. lowa standards for determimng whether a either basis. B. oth the percentage significant hazards consideration exists Date of amendment equest: August insertion basis with corresponding 29,1986. , scram times and the rod position bas,s i as stated in to CFR 50 92. A proposed Description of amendment request: with the corresponding scram times are amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards - De pr posed amendment would revise utilized in the General Electric ODYN considerations if operation of the facility the Duane Arnold Energy Center Option B Computer Reload Analysis.

(DAEC) Techmcal Specification Section Therefore, either basis for scram time In accordance with a proposed 3.3.C to change the basis for verifying testing demonstrates the ability of the amendment would not:(1) Involve a r d scram times from the present basis: control rod system to bring the reactor significant increase in the probability or scram timing to percentage of tod subcritical at a rate fast enough to consequences of an accident previously insertion, to scram timing to actual rod prevent fuel damage. i.e., to prevent the evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of position.The rod scram times in MCpR from becoming less than the a new or different kind of accident from Subsections 3.3.C.1 and 3.3.C.2 of aafety limit. %e change from percentage any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Secti n 3.3.C would be changed to insertion to equivalent even rod position involve a significant reduction in a correspond directly with the rod in Section 3.3.C.3 will provide uniformity margin of safety.

positions as utilized in the General in the basis of all rod scram timing The licensee has provided the Electric ODYN Option B Computer activities in the plant. Changing the following analysis of significant hazards Reload Analysis. Changing the scram scram time to directly correspond to the considerations in its August 29.1986 time in Subsection 3.3.C.3 of Section proposed even rod position 04 instead of request for a license amendment.

3.3.C to directly correspond to the 90% insertion is not necessary because The proposed change does not include a proposed even rod position 04 instead of rod position 04 is equivalent to 91.67%

significant increase in the probabihty or 90% inserted is not necessary because insertion and is therefore still Tod position 04 is equivalent to 91.6% conservative.

e luat ecau e the chan e on i niifies the SPPS as a necessary subsystem to ensure inserted and is therefore still (2) Does not create a possibility of a operabihty of the suppression pool.This conservative.The Techmcal new or different kind of accident change does not involve a design change or Specification Surveillance Requirement because neither the rod scram insertion physical change to the plant. 4.3.C fvould also be revised to clarify time requirements nor the equipment or

'I hus. there is no increase in the probability rod scram time testing based on rod process involved has changed. Rod conse ences of any accident previously os i n rather than percentage scram time testing based on rod position The proposed change does not create the The amendment also proposes to is consistent with established plant possibility of a new or different kind of administratively revise Technical testing capabilities and procedures and accident from any accident previously Specification numbering of subsections willincrease the accuracy of rod scram es atuated because this change only provides time testing.

in the Bases discussions to match the numbering system in the Technical (3) Does not involve a significant fde ed n ntegra of sup ression reduction in a margin of safety because pool s> stem. This change does not involve a Specification sections being addrmed design change or physical ch. 7e with and correct nomenclature errors in the the margm of safety derived from the respect to new or modified equipment. nor basis discussions. General Electric ODYN Option B does it involve a change in the mode of Basis forpreposedna significant Computer Analysis MCPR limits is operating esisting equipment, hozords consideration determination: based on verifying average rod insertion Thus, no new accident scenario is The Commission has provided times utilized in the reload analysis. The introduced by this clanfication of rod positions and corresponding rod requirements for suppression pool standards (10 CFR 50.92(c)) for determining whether a significant scram times proposed in this Ye posed change does not in olve a hazards consideration proposed amendment to an operating exists. A amendment are utilized in the General Electric ODYN Option B Computer significant reduction in the margin of safety because this clanfication of requirements for license for a facility involves no Reload Analysis.Therefore the MCPR suppression pool operabihty significantly significant hazards consideration if limits defined by this analysis remain reduces the possibility of not considering operation of the facility in accordance unchanged. The administrative changes SPPS as part of suppression pool operability, with the proposed amendment would proposed in this amendment are to which would enhance safety rather than not (1) involve a significant increase in achieve consistency in nomenclature reduce the margin of safety. the probability or consequences of an throughout the Technical Specifications.

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

37514 Federal Register / V:1. 51, Ns. 204 / Wednesday Oct ber 22, 1986 / Notic:s 1

l t pplication involves no significant insertability within 7 days of reducing accident from any accident previously hazards consideration. the shutdown margin instead of 24 evaluated.

LocalPublic Document Room hours. (3) Although the trip surveillance location: Cedar Rapide Public Library. The primary consideration in requirement is relaxed from 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to 500 First Street. S. F., Cedar Rapids, extending the surveillance time period seven days, there is no significant towa 52401. for verifying CEA insertability is increase in the probability of a stuck Attorneyforlicensee: Jack Newman, whether there would be a significant CEA with the new sur,eillance Esquire, Kathleen 11. Shes Esquire, increase in the probability of a stuck requirement. As such, this change will Newman and lioltzinger.1615 L Street, CEA during the 7-day period of time as not include a significant reduction in NW., Washington. DC. 20038. compared to the present 24-hour time margin of safety.

NRCPmfect Director: Daniel R. period. Consideration of the As the change requested by the Muller. configuration of the components that are licensee's September 25,1986 submittal Mih Pome and ught Company, used in CEA insertion indicate that satisfies the criteria of 50.92,it is Docket No. 50-as2, Waterford Steam there is nothing which would cause a concluded that:(1) the proposed change sigmficant increase in the probability of does not constitute a significant hazards Electric Station. Unit 3. St. Charles Parish, toulalana. a CEA becoming stuck.His is due to consideration as defined by 10 CFR the fixed geometry of these components Tc.92; (2) there is a reasonable assurance Date ofAmendment Request- over the 7-day period that could elapse that the health and safety of the public September 25,1986 between rod drop time measurements Description ofAmendment Request will not be endangered by the proposed and shutdown margin reduction.The change; and (3) this action will not result The proposed amendment would modify components considered include the fuel in a condition which significantly alters Techmcal Specification 3/4.10.1, assembly the CEA. the CEA extension SpECIALTEST EXCEPT10NS, the impact of the station on the shaft, the control element drive SIIUIDOWN MARGIN. environment as described in the NRC mechanism and the upper guide Final Environmental Statement.

Technical Specification 3.10.1 structure. Also, since the CEAs will Loco /PublicDocument Room sently allows the shutdown margin to insert upon loss of power, the ocation: University of New Orleans reduced to less than the normal probability of a stuck CEA is not cperating shutdown margin Library, Louisiana Collection. Lakefront, increased due to an electrical New Orleans, Louisiana 70122.

requirements during low power physics malfunction testing provided that certain conditions This change is similar to changes are satisfied. One of these conditions issued to other CE plants. C 1 9 aw t an,Potts nd (Surveillance Requirement 4.10.1.2) Basis forPmposedNo!.;ignificant Trowbridge,2300 N St., NW.

stipulates that all Control Element Horaals Considemtions Determination: Washington, DC 20037.

Assemblies (CEAs) not fully inserted in The NRC staff proposes that the NRCPmject Director: George W.

the core be shown to be capable of full proposed change does not involve a Knighton.

Insertion when tripped from at least the significant hazards consideration t-i tana Power and Ught Company, 50% withdrawn position within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> because, as required by the criteria of 10 Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam prior to redacing the shutdown margin CFR 50.92(c), operation of the facility in Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles to less than normal operating accordance with the proposed Parish, Loulslana, requirements.ne requested revision amendment would not:(1) Involve a would allow this surveillance to be significant increase in the probability or Date ofAmendment Request:

performed within 7 days of the consequences of an accident previously September 25,1986 shutdown margin reductia instead of evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of U#8C#iP ####

, #IA**"d*#"# N#7"####

within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> as presently required. a new or different kind of sccident from De proposed amendment would modify his modification is proposed to allow any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Technical Specification 3/4.10.3, low power physics testing to be SpECIAL TEST EXCEPTIONS, involve a significant reduction in the accomplished without an additional margin of safety.The basis for this REACTOR COOLANT LOOPS.

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

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

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

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

Fcd;r:1 Regist:r / Vol. 51. N2. 204 / Wrdnisdiy. Octob:r 22. 1986 / Notic:s 37515 The addition of Technical coverage this proposed change can not charging pumps operable. In addition.

Specification 3.10.3 e is being proposed involve a reduction in a margin of Table 3.1-1 will be replaced with a to provide an alternate means of safety. series of Tables (Tables 3.1-1 through ensuring a reactor trip prior to As the change requested by the 3.1-5) that provide the required boron exceeding the present limit for physics licensee's September 25.1986, submittal sampling frequency as a function of the testing at low thermal power levels.The satisfies the criteria of 50.92. It is core multiplication factor that must be CPC operating bypass permissive concluded that:(1) the proposed change adhered to whenever the boron dilution bistable serves the dual function of does not constitute a significant hazards alarm (s) is not operable. By monitoring permitting the Log Power Level-liigh consideration as defined by to CFR the boron concentration at these trip to be manually bypassed when the 50.92:(2) there is a reasonable assurance frequencies. the operators will have thermal power exceeds the operating that the health and safety of the public sufficient time to mitigate a boron bypass permissive setpoint.If the will not be endangered by ela proposed dilution event prior to the loss of permissive setpoint is increased to a change: and (3) this action will not result shutdown margin.

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

Table 2.2-1 of Technical Specification environment as described in the NRC The NRC staff proposes that the 2.2.1. then a Low power Level-l{igh Final Environmental Statement. proposed change does not involve a reactor trip will occur if an unplanned LocalPublic Document Room significant hazards consideration power excursion takes place during Location: Univerisity of New Orleans because, as required by the criteria of to physics testing.There' ore, the Log Library. Louisiana Collection. Lakefront. CFR 50.92(c), operation of the facility in Power Level trip funcuon may be used New Orleans. Louisiana 70122. accordance with the proposed in place of the Linear Power Level trip Attorney for hcensee: Mr. Bruce W.

amendment would not:(1) Involve a function to provide additional assurance Churchill. Esq., Shaw. Pittman. Potts and significant increase in the probability or that a reactor tr p will occur !n the event Trowbridge. 2300 N St NW. consequences of any accident of an unplanned power excursion during Washington. DC 20037. previously evaluated; or (2) Create the physics testing. NRC Project Director: George W. possibility of a new or different kind of BasisforProposedNo Cignificant Knighton.

accident from any accident previously 1/azards Consideration !!*rnunation: Louisiana Power and IJght Company, evaluated: or (3) Involve a significant The NRC staff proposes that the Docket No. 50-382. Waterford Steam reduction in the margin of safety.The proposed change does r;ot involve a sigmficant hazards consideration Electric Station. Unit 3. St. Charles basis for this proposed finding is given below.

because, as required by the criteria of to Parish. louisiana (1)'Ihis Specification is provided to CFR 50.92(c) operation of the facility in Date of amendment request: October accordance with the proposed 1.1988, ensure the orarators have sufficient De8Cf/P tion of amendment request time, from when they are first alerted to amendment would not:(1) Involve a a potential baron dilution. to take the s gnificant increase in the probability or The proposed change would revise consequences of an accident previously Technical Specification 3.1.2.9. appropriate corrective action to mitigate evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of Reactivity Control Systems. Boron the event. Normally, protection against a new or different kind of accident from Dilution". Surveillance Requirement this event is provided by two redundant any accident previously evaluated: or (3) 4.1.2.9.4 and the associated Bases alarms that actuate when the existing involve a significant reduction in the section (3/4.1.2.9). The reasons for this neutron flux doubles. With one or both margin of safety.The basis for this changewre:(1) The Cycle 2 core will of these alarms inoperable, the Cycle 2 proposed finding is given below. have higher enriched fuel and is safety analyses have shown that by (1) This proposed change would therefore more reactive than the Cycle 1 monitoring the RCS baron concentration increase the power level at which the core: (2) the Shutdown hfargin for Cycle at the frequencies shown in Tables 3.1-1 CPC's enable the DNBR-Low and 2 is lower than it was for Cycle 1(when through 3.1-5 the operators have ISD-liigh reactor trips. Protection. all Control Element Assemblies are sufficient time to take the actions however, would still be provided inserted): and (3) it is desirable to have necessary to mitigate the event. S,mce through this increase by the Log Power more than one charging pump operable this Specification applies only to the Level-liigh reactor trip. Since ample when the reactor is in hiode 5 and the Boron Dilution event, and the Cycle 2 protection is still supplied. there will be Reactor Coolant System (RCS)is Safety Analyses have shown that the no significant increase in the probability partially drained. Specifically. the consequences of this event are or consequences of an accident proposed change will allow the use of acceptable the proposed change will previously evaluated. two charging pumps when filling the not significantly increase the probability (2) Although this proposed change RCS as long as the k-eff is maintained at or consequences of any accident

.would alter the range of application for a value less than 0.96. previously evaluated.

certain trips. proper core protection Specification 3.1.2.9b currently (2) The proposed change is primarily a would be still supplied. No other requires removing power to two result of changes in the Cycle 2 core functional changes are proposed to be charging pumps when the reactor is in parameters and the desire to use more made to these trips: consequently, this hiode 5 and the RCS is partially drained. than one charging pump to fill the RCS change can neither create nor involve a The proposed change would replace this following a refueling or following any new path which may lead to a new or Specification with statements that allow maintenance that requires the RCS to be different kind of accident. more than one charging pump to be partially drained.There has been no (3) As stated above, the proposed operable depending on the physical change to the plant other than change would alter the range of multiplication factor in the core. That is, to allow an additional charging pump (s) application for certain trip functions, if the k-eff is between 0.94 and 0.96 it is to be operable if the core multiplication Protection. however, would still be permissible to have 2 charging pumpr factor is low enough. The only accident provided for over this incr~ ease. Since operable or,if the k-eff is less than 0.94, that could be caused by an additional there will be no reduction in trtp it is permissible to have all three charging pump in operation is a boron

37516 Federal Register / Vcl. 51, No. 204 / W:dn:sdzy, Octob;r 22, 1986 / Notices dilution wh% has already been shown (1) Delete the definition of consideration. Therefore. In accordance to have acceptable results. Thus, the containment integrity in the Definitions with 10 CFR 50.91 and 10 CFR 50.92, the proposed change will not create the Section of the TS since the definition following analysis has been performed possibility of a new or different kind of appears in the actual Technical by the licenaee:

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

Normally, this event is precluded by a reference to Specification 3.9 for We have reviewed this proposal as isolating the primary makeup water or clarity. required by to CFR 50.92 to determine by the operability of the high neutron (3) Restate Technical Specification whether a significant hazards consideration may exist. A summary of our find ngs is as flux alarms which alert the operator 3.14B for clarity and delete a reference with sufficient time to take corrective to Cycle 7 which is no longer ,e proposed changes which are for the action.The action statements of this appropriate. purpose of improving clarity, are recre Specification provide an alternate (4) Correct a 'nisprint in the restructuring without altering intent or means to detect a boron dilution event description of the concentration term C. requirements or which correct typographical by monitoring the RCS boron for secondary coolant activity in. errors, which have been categoncally concentration to detect any changes. Technical Specification 3.14. determined not to involve a significant ne frequencies specified in Table 3.1-1 (5) Divide the Technical Specification hazards consideration.

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

Remedial Action for clarity, and the 1. Imln a significant incmase in the the RCS boron mocentration and take the appropriate corrective action prior to term steady-state concentrations is used probability or consequences of an accident pM '

the loss of shutdown margin.More to distinguish brief transients from 2 ate t po ib lity of a new or frequent checks of the RCS boron ongomg conditions. dtfrerent kind of accident from any accident concentration are required when more (6) Add the term " fluoride" to the previously analyzed; or charging pumps are operable or when reactor coolant sample chemistry 3. Involve a sigruficant reduction in the there is a higher core multiplication requirement of Technical Specification margin of safety.

factor because there is less time Section 4.2 to be consistent with the lience.no significant hazards available for the operators to take requirements of Technical Specifications consideration exists.

corrective action. Hus, the proposed Section 3.18. The staff has reviewed the licensee's change does not result in a significant (7) Delete the requirement to calibrate no significant hazards consideration reduction in the margin of safety, the post. accident hydrogen monitor m detennination and agrees with the As the change requested by the Table 4.2-2 of Technical Specification licensee's analysis.Therefore. based on licensee's October 1,1986 submittal Section 4.2 as it is included in Table this review, the staff proposes to satisfies the critena of 50.92,it is 4.1-3. determine that the application for concluded that:(1) the proposed change (8) Revise Technical Specification amendment involves no significant does not constitute a significant hazards Section 5.8 to indicate the specific hazarda c nsideradon.

consideration as defined by to CFR revision to Regulatory Guide 1.33 to 50.92; (2) there is reasonable assurance which Maine Yankee has been and is LocalPublic Document Room currently committed in their Quality location: Wiscasset Public Library, High that the heslth and safety of the public Street, Wiseasset, Mame.

will not be endangered by the proposed Assurance Program.

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

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

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

Loco 1Public Document Room function being tested as that part of the Nebraska Public Power District Docket Location: University of New Orleans recirculation actuation signal No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Library, Louisiana Collection. Lakefront, in addition, typographical errors Nemaha County, Nebraska New Orleans, Louisiana 70122. would be corrected and changes would Attorney forlicensee: Mr. Bruce W. be made to the Bases for TS 3.11. 3.22 Dates cf amendment requests Churchill, Esq. Shaw, Pittman. Potts and and 3.24 to correct cross references, February 10,1986; September 9.19BS.

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

Washington. DC 20037. correct misprints to conform with the The February 10,1986 submittal was NRCPmjectDirector George W. Final Safety Analysis Report. previously published in the Federal Knighton. Basisforproposedno significant Register on April 9,1986 (51 FR 11230).

horords considemtion determination: The September 9,1986 submittal revised Mam, e Yankee Atomic Power Company, The Commission has provided the February 10,1986 application to DockeWa M. Maine Yankee standards for determining whether a conform to Standard Technical Atonne Power Station. Ilocoln County, sign f cant hazard exists as stated in 10 Specifications (NUREG-0123).The M**"* CFR 50.92(c).10 CFR 50.91 requires that amendment would modify the Technical Date of amendment request: January at the time a licensee requests an Specifications (TS) applicable to high 29,1986, revised July 29,1986 and amendment it must provide to the radiation areas:(1} lt would be specified August 28,1986. Commission its analysis, using the that measurements for the determination Description of amendment request: standards in 10 CFR 50.92, about the of high radiation areas are to be made at The proposed amendment would: issue of no significant hazards a distance of 18 inches from the source l

l 1

Feder:I Regist:r / Vol. 51, No. 2M / W dnesd:y, October 22, 1986 / N:tices 37517 of radiation;(2)" Barricade" would be considerationif operation of the facility Nuclear Regulatory Commission's clarified as including ." doors, yellow and in accordance with the proposed " Policy Statement on Engineering magenta rope, turnstile" or other device amendment would not:(1) Involve a Expertise on Shift." Generic 1.etter 86-to impede physical movement across the significant increase in the probability or tM. Specifically, the Shift Technical entrance or access to the radiation area; consequences of an accident previously Advisor would be a licensed Senior (31 The requirement that entrance to evaluated, or (2) Create the possibility of Reactor Operator anct would also high radiation areas be controlled by the a new or different kind of accident from perform the function of Assistant shift supervisor would be replaced by a any accident previously evaluated, or (3) Station Shift Supervisor. In addition, thir requirement that it be controlled by a Involve a significant reduction in a " equivalency" option to a bachelor's Special Work Permit. Radiation margin of safety. degree in a scientific or engineering protection personnel and those they are The proposed change does not alter discipline would be removed from the escortmg would be exempt from the existing equipment or surveillances. it Shift Technical Advisor job description requirement for a Special Work Permit will necessitate changes to radiation and the alternative for a Professional during the performance of their assigned protection procedures and the FSAR for Engineer's license would be added.

duties while following plant radiation the sake of uniformity and consistencT Basisforproposedno significant protection procedures for entry into high between documents but such hazards consideration determination:

radiation areas;(4) A requirement would procedural changes are of an ne Commission has provided be added that personnel entering high administrative nature, do not impact standards for determining whether a radiation areas unless provided with a plant operations. and will improve significant hazards consideration exists monitoring device which continuously control of high radiation areas.The as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c).

indicates the dose rate, be provided proposed change would thus not affect ne 1 censee has presented its with a monitoring device which the probability or consequences of an determination of no significant hazards continuously integrates the dose rate accident previously evaluated.

consideration as follows:

and alarms at a preset integrated dose. The proposed change does not introduce any new mode of operation, to CR 50.91 requires that at the time a or with a qualified escort with a dose licene requuts en amendmuit.it must rate monitoring device who is and due to its administrative nature-does not involve any limiting conditions provide to the Commission its analysis, using responsible for providing positive the standards in Section 50 92 about the issue control over the activities in the area for operation or surveillances. of no significant hazards consideration.

and shall perform periodic dose rate Therefore, the proposed amendment nerefore. in accordance with to CFR 50 91 monitoring at a specified frequency; and does not create the possibility of a new and to CR 50 92. the following analysis has (5) Additional requirements would be or different kind of accident from any been performed; added applicable for high radiation previously evaluated. The opemtion ofNine Mde pbint unit : in areas accessible to personnel in which a No safety limits or limiting safety accordance with t.heproposedamendment system settings prescribed by the wd/ nor mvolve a sigm/icant inemse in she major portion of the body couId receive Probobility or consequences of an occident m one hour a dose greater than 1000 Technical Specifications would be affected. The proposed changes would Pteriously erC/UOted.

mrem. These additional requirements nue administratpe changu wu! bring the would require that: provide for improved administrative Techmcal Specifications into agreement with trols fdi h8 dation areas and the NRC Policy Statement on Engineering

' bl 1 ith will n t redu e the safety margin in any Expertise on Shift.ne Assistant Station dose rates such tha a m i port on of the manner. Shift Supervisor function. training and body could receive in one hour a dose greater than 1000 mrem shall be provided with Since the application for amendment houcational background will meet the locked doors to prevent unauthorized entry. involves proposed changes that are applicable NRC requirements. Quahfications Doors shall remain locked except during encompassed by the criteria for which of other staff members has not changed.

periods of access by personnel under an no significant hazards consideration nerefore, this change will not increase the approsed SWP which shall specify the dose exists, the staff has made a proposed probability or consequences of an accident.

rates in the immediate work area. For detcrmination that the application The opemtion ofNine Mde Not unn as individual high radiation areas accessible to involves no significant hazards "'#####' "^ O'#'"# ###'"###"'

personnel that are located within large areas. d "0I80k"## O* P0"'MNY 8/8 8'" ##

such as the containment, or areas where no "

'" ' al / c Document Room #

h,$y"s# /y c/(or ng no n re an pujom

,e 9 , cte !

location: Auburn Public 1.ibrary,118 ne proposed changes are administrative around the individual areas. then that area 15th Street. Auburn. Nebraska 68305. and do not create the possibihty of a new or shall be barnceded and conspicuously Attorneyfor heensee:Mr. G. D. different kind of accident.

posted. Area radiation monitors that have Watscn, Nebraska Public Power The opemtion o/Nine Mile Point Unit f in been set to alarm if radiation levels increase. District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, accordonce with theproposedamendment provide both a visual and an audible signal to Nebraska 68001, wdi ngt mvolve a sigmficant reductaan in a alert personnelin the area of the increase. NRCProject Director: Daniel R.

Stay times or continuous surveillance by "ga 8 p8'padministrative

, changes do Muller.

radiation protection personnel quahfied m, not cha"8e staffin8l evels or staff trei"'"8' radiation protection procedures to provide Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Consequently, there is no reduction in margin addhions! positive esposure control over the Docket No. 50-220. Nine Mile Point of safety.

activities within the area. Nuclear Station Unit No.1, Oswego The staff has reviewed the licensee's Basis forproposedno significant County, New York no significant hazards consideration hazards consideration determination: Date of amendment request: determination and agrees with the The Commission has provided September 15,1988. licensee's analysis. Therefare, the staff standards for determining wnether a Description of amendment request proposes to determine that the significant hazards determination exists The proposed amendment would modify application for amendment involves ne as stated in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A proposed Technical Specification (TS) Sections significant hazards consideration.

amendment to an opera' ting license 0.2.2 and 0.3 and Table 8.2-1 to reflect LocalPublic Document Room involves no significant hazards changes required to conform to the location

37518 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday October 22, 1986 / Notices State University of New York, significant hazards considerations The changes are administrative in Penfield Library, Reference and because it is a clarification of language. nature and do not result in any changes Documents Department, Oswego. New Loco / Public Document Room to the design or functionirg of the plant.

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

Pennsylvania Avenue,NW., Attorneyforlicensee: Gerald Garfield, Therefore. the proposed changes do not Washington, DC 20006. Esq , Day, Berry, and Howard. City affect the probability or consequences of NRCProject Director: Place. Hartford, Connecticut 08103-3499. any accident previously evaluated.

John A.Zwolinski. NRCPmfect Director: Vincent S. (2) Create the possibility of a new or Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, N nan different kind of accident from any Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Nuclear Omaha Public Power District, Docket accident previously evaluated.

Power Station Unit 3 New tendon No. 50-285. Fort Calhoun Station, Unit Since the changes do not result in any County,Connecti ut No.1, Washington County, Nebraska plant modifications or operating procedures. no new path is created that Date ofopplicctionforamendment: Date of amendment reguest:

may lead to a new o@erent M of August 28,1986 September 26,1986.

Description of amendment request: accident.

Description of amendment mquest:

The amendment would revise Technical The amendment would change the (3)Inv Ive any reduction in the Specification Section 6.5.3.2 to change Technical Specifications to incorporate margin of safety, the quorum required to conduct a organizational changes. Specifically, it The specific purpose of the changes is meeting of the hiillstone Unit No. 3 would change titles to reflect recent to reflect the new titles and Nuclear Review Board to four. By promotions and incorporate some organizational restructuring , ,

replacing "enough to constitute a organizational restructuring. implemented by the licensee.This will majority of the assigned members " with Organirational changes include moving not affect safety margins in a positive or "four" Section 6.5.3.2 will be consistent , I the tralring program from the negative manner.

organizational chart for the Fort Based on the above, the Commission with the information contained in the hiillstone Units No.1 and 2 Technical Calhoun Station staff and placing it proposes to determine that the proposed Specifications, under the newly titled positioa of amendment involves no significant Basisforproposedno significant hfanager Administrative and' training hazards considerations.

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

considerations. According to to CFR Vice President; a new position of Attorneyforlicensee:LeBoeuf Lamb.

50.92(c), a proposed amendment to an Supervisor-Outage Projects has been Leiby, and hiacRae 1333 New c perating bcense involves no significant created; and the positions of Supervisor. Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, hazards considerations if operation of Administrative Services and Supervisor. DC 20036.

the facility in accordance with the Security are now shown on Figure 5-2. NRCPm/ectDirector: Ashok C.

proposed amendment would not: Figures 5-1 and 5-2 have been revised to Thadani (1) involve a significant increase in reflect these organizational changes. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the probability or consequences of an Basisforptcposedno sigmfican! Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo cccident previously evaluated; or hazards considemtion determination: Canyon Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2, (2) create the possibility of a new or he Commission has provided guidance San Luis Obispo County, California different kind of accident from any concerning the application of the cccident previously evaluated; or standards for determining whether a Dateforrequest amendment: July 18.

(3) involve a significant reduction in a significant hazards consideration exists 1986 (Reference LAR 86-08).

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

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

contains a requirement for a quorum achieve consistency or correct an error. hfTU burnup in Cycle 1 and upon NRC size ranging from 4 members to 6 The proposed changes are approval of the Unit 2 emergency core members, depending on the size of the representative of Example (i)in that cooling system (ECCS) reevaluation NRB.The proposed change would they reflect title and organizational usmg the BART Evaluation hiodel.

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wednesday. October 22, 1988 / Notices 37519 by Westinghouse for Cycle 1 of Diablo acceptable.Therefore, the staff proposes pressure of greater than or equal to 165 Canyon Unit 2. The NRC-approved to determine that a no significant psig versus the proposed differential procedure outlined in WCAP-10216-PA hazards consideration is involved in the pressure of 157 psid.

was used for the analysis. A heat flux proposed amendment. Basisforproposedno significant hot channel factor (Feof 2.32 was used LocalPublic Document Room hazards consideration determination:10 in the analysis. hi accordance with the Location: California Polytechnic State CFR 50.92 states that a proposed NRC March 3.1988, exemption from a University Library. Covernment amendment will involve a no significant requirement of 10 CFR 50.48. Unit 21s Documents and Maps Department. San hazards consideration if the proposed restricted to a maximum Foof 2.30. Luis Obispo. California 93407.

AttorneysforLicensee: Philip A. amendment does not:(i) Involve a PC&E letter DCle86-036, dated February significant increase in the probability or 14.1988. provided information Crane. Esq Richard F. Locke. Esq, consequences of an accident previously demonstrating that the results of the Pacific Cas and Electric Company. P.O.

Box 7442. San Francisco, California evaluated; or (ii) Create the possibility ECCS reevaluation with the BART of a new or different kind of accident' hiodel are expected to confirm a 94120 and Bruce Norton. Esq.. Norton from any accident previously evaluated; sufficient calculated peak clad and % est. P.O. Box 10569. Phoerux*

temperature margin with an Feof 2.32. Arizona 85064. or ( i) Involve a significant reduction in NRCProject Director: Steven A.

• T" f d di gly & N Basis for ProposedNo Significant, p,,go7,,3 gy, g'o w ng analysis:

Hazards Consideration Determmation: Varga.

The Commission has provided (i) and (ti)-Does the proposed Portland General Electric Company, et amendment involve a significant stdndards Ior determining sigmficant hazards considerationwhe,ther exis al Docket

a. ts No.56-344. Trojan Nuclear increase in the 'robabilit# or PIant.Colunabla County Omgon consequences of an accident previously (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a Date of amendment request-July 17 evaluated; or create the possibility of a facility involves a no significant hazards 1986. new or different kind of accident from consideration if operation of the facility Description of amendment mquest- any previously evaluated?

in accordance with the proposed The amendment proposes changes to the %e licensee has stated that pump amendment would not:(1) Involve a surveillance requirements for the discharge pressure is not a true significant increase in the probability or emergency core cooling system pumps, indication of pump performance since it consequences of an accident previously as stated in Sections 4.1.2.3. 4.1.2.4. and is dependent upon pump suction evaluated:(2) create the possibility of a 4.5.2.1 of the Technical Specifications pressure. A verification of pump new or different kind of accident from (TS). The following specific changes are differential pressure provides a more any accident previously evaluated; or (3) proposed: accurate means of assessing pump involve a significant reduction in a TechnicalSpecification 4.f.2.3-De performance. Furthermore these values margin of safety, surveillance requirement for the for the centrifugal charging pumps and The licensee has determined that the centrifugal charging pump (CCP) safety injection pumps are consistent proposed revision will not; operability requirement for Modes 5 and with those used in the Final Safety (1) Involve a significant increase in 6 will be changed to:" verifying, that on Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 15 the probability or consequences of an recirculation flow the pump develops a accident analysis.

accident previously evaluated because differential pressure greater than or the results of the Westinghouse equal to 2400 psid when tested pursuant evaluation confirm that the full range of to Techmcal Specification 4.0.5. W t nghou e t rmin d new normal and accident conditions possible TechnicalSpecification 4.1.2.4-%e reme h uld with the proposed RAOC limits are surveillance requirement for the CCP {e 7p da gpm rec at on consistent with the safety analysis in operability requirement for Modes 1. 2 fl w. Although the value of 157 psid is 8

! the FSAR (Update. Revision 1). The 3. and 4 will be changed to: " verifying, psi lower than the current limit of 165 analysis is based on a Westinghouse that on recirculation flow, each pump psi. the RHR system will still meet its safety evaluation using the NRC- develops a differential pressure greater des,gn i function of cooling the RCS to approved procedure outlined in WCAP- than or equal to 2400 paid v. hen tested and maintaining the RCS at shutdown 10216-PA. The Westinghouse evaluation p'trsuant to Technical Specification temperatures. providing low-head generates axial fin difference as a 4.0.5." injection and recirculation during LOCA function of power that is used as input Technica/ Specification 4.5.2.i-%e conditions, and transferring water l in the accident analyses. surveillance requirement for the ECCS between the Refueling Water Storage (2) Create the posubility of a new or pump performance veriScation will be Tank and the refuelh2g cavity. During different kind of accident from any changed to: "By verifying that each of cooldown operations, flow through the I

accider.t presiously evaluated as the following pumps develops the heat exchangers meets the design basis

! confirmed in the plant specific indicated differential pressure on of 3,000 gpm as specified in TS 4.9.8.1.

l Westinghouse safety evaluation recirculation flow when tested pursuant The most limiting LOCA analysis is for l discussed above. to Technical Specification 4.0.5: that of a large breck.The new value of I (3) Involve a significant redaction in (1) Centrifugal charging pump greater RHR pump head requires an additional l the margin of safety as confirmed in the than or equal to 2400 psid, 0.25 seconds of accumulator / safety l plant specific Westinghouse safety (2) Safety injection pump greater than injection flow to achieve the peak clad

! evaluation discussed above for the full or equal to 1455 paid, and temperature (PCT) tuni-around. This l range of normal and accident conditions (3) RHR pump greater than or equal to 0.25 seconds of additional heatup results l

possible with the proposed change to 157 psid." in an 11 *F increase of PCT to 2001 *F.

the Technical Specifications involves a The current Technical Specifications This PCT of 2001 *F is well within the l no significant hazards consideration. require verification of the respective 2200 *F 10 CFR 50.48 timit.ne third l The NRC staff has reviewed the pumps

• discharge pressure rather than function, the transfer of RCS water for proposed amendment request and the the differential pressure. The current TS refueling. is a nonsafety-related licensee's determination and finds it also specifies RilR pump discharge function.

37520 Feder:1 Register / Vgl. 51, No. 204 / Wedn:sdty. Octob;r 22, 1986 / Notices As such, the proposed chan8es do not Electric Company,121 S.W. Salmon pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington.

(i) increase the probability or Street, portland. Oregon 97204. DC 2000G.

consequences of an accident, and (ii) NRCPm/ect Director Steven A. NRCPmject Director: Vincent S.

create a n.ew or different kind of Varga. Noonan.

(ii ) es the proposed amendment Public Servica Electric and Gas Sacramento Municipal Utility District, involve a significant reduction in a Company, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50- Docket No.56-312, Rar,r.ho Seco margin of safety? 311. Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Nuclear Generating Station, Sacramento The licensee stated that the margin of Unit Nos.1 and 2. Salem County, New County, California safety (the capability of boron injection I*f"Y Date of amendment request:

cnd emergency core cooling) provided Date of amendments nquest: October November 8.1985 (Supersedes by the safety injection, charging and 3,1986. amendment request dated November 14 RilR pumps will be improved by Description of amendments request: 1984, in its entirety).

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

psid. containing defective rods. The current Accordingly, the proposed amendment The safety inj.ection and centrifugal Technical Specification 5.3.1 states that would incorporate into the Technical charging pump heads are the origmal numbers used by Westinghouse in the each fuel assembly shall contain 264 fuel Specifications (TSs) necessary Limiting rods clad with Zircaloy-4.The proposed Conditions for Operation (LCO) and FSAR Chapter 15 accident analysis and, change would allow for a reduction in surveillance requirements for the shunt thus, no reduction in the margin of safety is being made. While a reduction the number of fuel rods per assembly in trip attachment and applicable silicon cases where leaking fuel rods are controlled rectifiers (SCRs). Specifically, in the requirement of RIIR pump head identified and replaced with either filler TS LCOs in section 3.5.1 will be does reduce in a small way the margin rods (consisting of either Zircaloy-4 or affected, including associated cle r y all : de the accep ce criteria a en stee naa es sune ance requkements ad bases permit utilization of the remaining statements.

cf the Standard Review Plan section B.3. ,

The RIIR 11 till b bl of energy in the fuel assemblies containing Basisforpmposedno significant meeting d s gn Ifow' require defective fuel rods. hazards consideration determination-ents ,

through the RiiR heat excha ers and a Basisforpmposedno significant As a consequence of the Salem 199 *F margin to PCT will be maintained. hazards consideration determination: Anticipated Transient Without Scram As such, the proposed changes do not The Commission has provided guidance (ATWS) event, item 4.3 of Genene significantly reduce a margin of safety, concerning the application of the Letter 83-28 established requirements The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a for automatic actuation of a shunt trip guidance concerning the application of sigm,ficant hazards consideration exists attachment on reactor trip breakers.

these standards by providing certain by providing certain examples (51 FR Furthermore, licensees were instructed Examples (March 6,1986,51 FR 7751). 7751).The example of actions which to submit appropriate TS change Examples of amendments that are involve no significant consideration requests prior to declaring the modified considered not likely to involve include Example (iii) which states: "For system operable. item 4.4 required the significant hazards considerations are a nuclear power reactor, a change TS changes to also include testing of the (ii) a change which constitutes an resulting from a nuclear reactor core SCRs, which interrupt control rod cdditionallimitation. restriction or reloading,if no fuel assemblies power.

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

some increase to the probability or significant changes are made to the Based on guidance from Generic consequences of a previously analyzed acceptance criteria for the technical Letter 85-10 and Babcock & Wilcox cecident or may reduce in some way a specificat. ions, that analytical methods Owners Group, the licensee has safety margin. but where the results of used to demonstrate conformance with submitted a TS change request following tne change are clearly within all technical specifications and regulations the guidelines prescribed by 10 CFR cceeptable cr;teria with respect to the are not significantly changed and that 50.92 for determining no significant system or component specified in the the NRC has previously found such hazarda considerations. The licensee Standard Review Plan. . . . methods acceptable." The recer stituted z has concluded from their analysis that The staff has reviewed the licensee's - assemblies will meet the original desiF n operation of Rancho Seco in accordance no significar.t hazaids analysis and criteria. The analyt: cal trethods ~used with this propened amendment:

concludes that the proposed changes are will remain unchanged. Therefore, the 1. Does not involve a significant within the scope of the Commission's staff proposes to determine that the increase in the probability or cited examples.Thus, the staff proposes proposed change the use of consequences of an accident presiously to determine that the requested changes reconstituted fuel assemblies doe. not evaluated, do not involve a significar.t hazards pose a significant hazards 2.Does not create the possibility of a consideration. consideration. new or different kind of accident from LocalPublic Documer:t Room LocalPublic Document Room any accident previously evaluated, and location: Multnomah County Library, location: Salem Free Library 122 West 3. Does not involve a significant 801 S.W.10th Avenue. Portland, Oregon. Broadway, Salem, New Jersey 0807. reduction in a rn&rgin of safety. The Attorneyforlicensee:J.W. Durham. Attorneyforlicensee: Conner and Commission's staff has reviewed the Senior Vice President. Portland General Wetterhann, Suite 1050.1747 licensee's submittal for amending the

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

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

these TS requirements will constitute an and densification. Fission product LocalPublic Document Room additional control and not reduce the generation is not sensitive to the mass of location: Fairfield County Library.

margin of safety. fuelinvolved but to the powerlevel. As Garden and Washington Streets.

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

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

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

change constitutes an additional control coolant accident (LOCA) analyses. NRCPmjectDirector LesterS.

not presently mcluded in the TSs. LOCA analyses are sensitive t Rubenstein.

Therefore, since the application for parameters such as pellet diameter, amendment involves proposed changes pellet-clad gap, stack height shrinking Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket that are similar to an example for which factor and pellet density as they relate Nos. 50-327 and 50-328. Sequoyah

. no significant hazards considerations to pellet temperature and volumetric Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. Hamilton exist, the Commission has made a heat generation. Individual fuel rod County, Tennessee proposed determination that the uranium weight, as currently reported in Date of amendment request: March 4.

application for amendment involves no the Techmcal Specifications, is not 1983, as supplemented September 30 significant hazards considerations. explicity modeled in any non-LOCA 1986.

LocalPubhc Document Room event. Total uranium present in the core g,,,,,p,;,, ,y ,,,,g,,,, ,,qu,,g; location: Sacramento City-County is mput into the transient analyses, but These amendments would change Library.,828 I Street. Sacramento, is generated using a methodology Califorma 95814. Independent of the value presented in License Condition 2.C.(34) for Unit I and Attorneyfor licensee: David S. the Technical Specifications. 2.C.(14) for Unit 2 to revise the Kaplan. Sacramento Municipal Utility implementation date for the The mass of uranium is accounted for ,

District. 6201 S Street. P.O. Box 15830, in the standard fuel rod design through modification necessary to comply with Sacramento. California 95813. Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.97. Revision 2.

appropriate modeling of the fuelpellet NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz. geometry and initial fuel density. 9 asis forpmposedno significan!

Variations in uranium mlIse associated hazards considemtwa determination:

South Carolina Electnc and Gas w th allowable as-built variations, but The reason for the proposed change is to Company, South Carolina Public Sem.ce satisfy the schedule requirements within the specification limits for the Authority, Docket No,. 50-395, Virgil C. pellet dimensions and initial density, are approved by the staff in its June 15,1085.

Summer Nuclear Station. Unit 1, letter from E. Adensam to H. G. Farris, accounted for in the reactor core design Fairfield County, South Carohna " Issuance of Orders Confirming analyses and therefore have no impact Dale of amendment request: on margin to reactor core design criteria. Licensee Commitrcents on Emergency September 11.1986. The fuel rod uranium weight. currently Response Capsbilities."In the June 15.

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

Features Section 5.3.1. " Fuel and internals. He Commissian has provided Assemblies." of the Technical The Commission has provided examples (51 FR 7744) of actions not Specifications identifies a maximum guidance concerning the application of likely to involve a significant hazards total fuel rod weight of 1760 gra ns of these standards by prosiding certain consideration. Example (i) of this uranium. Recent improvements to the examples (51 FR 7751). One of these, guidance states that,"A purely fuel design. including an as-built density Example (iii). involving no significant administrative change to technic.al increase and chamfered pellets with a hazards considerations is ". . a change specifications: For example, a change to reduced dish, have increased fuel weight resulting from a nuclear reactor core achieve consistency throughout the slightly.These weight increases will reloading. if no fuel assemblies technice.1 specifications, correction of an cause the maximum fuel rod weight in significantly different from those found error. or a change in nomenclatyre" subsequent fuel cycles to exceed the previously acceptable to the NRC for a would not likely constitute a significant currently specified maximum value of previous core at the facility in question hazard. ne staff has reviewed the 1766 grams.The proposed Technical are involved. nis assumes that no proposed amendments and concludes

37522 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1986 / Notices that they fall within the envelope of consequences of an accident previously Briefdescription of amendment:The Example (i). evaluated, because the proposed proposed amendment would modify the Accordingly, the staff proposes to changes continue to require that the reactor trip system instrumentation determine that the requested training program must meet or exceed setpoints contained in Technical amendments do not involve a significant the requirements of section 5.5 of ANS!/ Specification Table 2.2-1 to incorporate hazards consideration. ANS N1 1-1971 and the additional increased uncertainties related to Loco /PublicDocument Room supplemental requirements as stipulated resistance temperature detector errors location: Chattanooga. Hamilton County in Specification 6.4.1: or (2) creste the identified during high temperature Bicentennial Library,1001 Broad Street, possibihty of a new or different kind of calibration.

Chattsnooga Tennessee 37401. accident than previously evaluated. Date ofpublication ofindividual Attorneyforlicensee:IAwis E. because the training program will motice in Federal Register: September 25, Wallace Acting General Counsel. continue to meet ANSI /ANS 1986 (51 FR 34169).

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

Commerce Avenue.E11B33 Knoxville, different kinds of accidents are October 27,1966 Tennessee 37902. conceivable; or (3) Involve a significant oco/Public Document Room NRC Project Director: B. J. reduction in a margin of safety, because Jacotion: Emporia State University, Youngblood. there are no safety margins threatened William Allen White Library,1200 Washington Public Power Supply by the proposed change. Commercial Street, Emporia. Kansas System. Docket No. 56497, WNP-2, Based on our review of the proposed and Washburn University School of Law Richland, Washington moddicahons, the sta'f agrees with the Library. Topeka Kansas.

licensee s determination. Accordingly, Dates ofamendment sequests: the Commission proposes to determine Mississippi Power & IJght Company, September 27, and November 6,1985. that the proposed changes to the WNP-2 Middle South Energy,Inc., South and September 17,1988. Technical Specifications involve no Mississippi Electric Power Association, Description ofamendment request

• significant hazards considerations. Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear This proposed amendment,if approved. Ieco1Public Document Room Station. Unit 1, Claiborne County, will change the Administrative Controls location: Richland Public Library, Swift Mississippi section of the WN%2 Technical and Northgate Streets' Richland Specifications.The proposed Washington 99352 D teofamendmentreouest August amendment involves administrative 12,1985 as amended September 25,1985 Attorneyforlicensee Nicholas changes to Specification 6.4.1 and and supplemented October 5 and Reynolds, Esquire. Bishop, Liberman, organizational charts (L2.2-la and 6.2.2- Cook, Purcell and Reynolds.1200 October 22.1985,and May 30,1986.

Ib. Seventeenth Street. NW., Washington, Brief descriphon of amendment

. Technical Specification 6.4.1, as request:The proposed amendment presently written, requires that the retraining and replacement training DC Nacpin 20036' fect Director:Elinorwould theC.

make the following changes in Techmcal Specification; add Adensam.

program shall be maintained under the specifications in Table 3.3.3-1, direction of the TechnicalTraining PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED NOTICES " Emergency Core Cooling System Manager.ne Supply System proposes OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE (ECCS) Actuation Instrumentation" and modification to reflect that these OF AMENDMENTS TO OPERATING Table 3.3.3-2. " Emergency Core Cooling programs shall be maintained under the LICENSES AND PROPOSED NO System Actuation Instrumentation direction of Training Coordinators. SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS Setpoints" to incorporate interlock Additional modifications are CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION instrumentation which is designed to requested to the aforementioned Supply AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING prevent inadvertent overpressurization System organization charts to reflect The following notices were previously of low design pressure emergency core more accurately the current company published as separate individual cooling systems by the reactor coolant organizational configurations. notices.%e notice content was the systems, and make associated changes Basisforproposedno significant same as above.They were published as in Table 3.3.3-3,"ECCS Response hozon/s consideration determination: individual notices because time did not Times" erd Surveillance Requirement The Commission has provided allow the Commission to wait for this bi- 4.5.1 regarding response times of ECCS standards for determining whether a weekly notice.They are repeated here injection systems, Table 4.3.3.1-1.

significant hazards consideration exists because the bi-weekly notice lists all *ECCS ActuationInstrumentation (to CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendments proposed to be issued Surveillance Requirements" amendment to an operatir.g license for a involving no significant hazards Surveillance Requirement 4.4.3.2.2.

facility involves no significant hazards consideration. " Reactor Coolant System Operational considerstion if eperation of the facility For details, see the individual notice Leakage," Table 3.4.3.2-2 " Reactor in accordance with the proposed in the Federal Register on the day and Coolant System Interface Valves amendment would not (1) involve a page cited.* Bis notice does not extend Pressure Monitors Alarm." and Tab'e significant increase in the probability or the notice period of the original notice. 3 4.3.2-3 " Reactor Coolant System consequences of an accident previously Interface Valves Pressure Interlocks."

evaluated:(2) create the possibility of a Kansas Gas and Electric Company, These proposed changes were requested new or different kind of accident from Kansas City Power and Light Company, in item 13 of the attachment to the an accident previously evaluated; or (3) Kansas Electric Power Cooperativa, Inc., licensee's letter dated August 12,1985, involve a significant reduction in a Docket No. 50-482 Wolf Creek as amended September 25,1985 and margin of safety. Generating Station, Coffey County, supplemented October 5 and October 22.

The licensee has determined that the Kansas 1985 and May 30.1986. The changes requested amendment per 10 CFR 50.92 ' Date of amendment request: May 31, requested in item 12 of the August 12.

does not:(1) Involve a significant 1985, as supplemented September 15, 1985 letter wepe previously noticed and increase in the probability or 1988. issued as Amendment No. 7 to GGNS

- _ _ _ - _____- - -__-_- _O

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

8.1985. license amendment. Docket Nos. STN 54528 and STN 50-This notice supersedes a previous Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 529. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating notice published in thd Federal Register Amendment to Facility Operating Station. Units 1 and 2. Maricopa County, on August 28,1985 (50 FR 34994). The License and Proposed No Significant Arizona previous notice was based on the llazards Consideration Determination hcensee s imtial application for and Opportunity for flearing in Date ofApplicationfor Amendments:

amendment dated August 12.1985. July 23.1986, and supplemental letters cor.nection with these actions was Dunng its safety review of proposed published in the Federal Register as dated August 26 and September 20.1986.

changes to Technical Specifications for indicated. No request for a hearing or Bde/Desuiptmn oMmendmen9 the ECCS injection valve interlocks the petition for leave to intervene was filed ne amendments revised the Technical staff noted the licensee's proposed following this notice. Specifications by changing the setpomts deletion of tests of response times for Unless otherwise indicated. the involved with the Low Reactor Coolant starting the ECCS systems associated Commission has determined that these Flow reactor trip function, to values with the injection valves, because the amendments satisfy the criteria for which are still bounded by current system response with valve interlocks categorical exclusion in ac:ordance safety analyses. so that process noise would vary depending on the rate of with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant can be accommodated without tripping depressurization during a loss of coolant to 10 CFR 51.22(b). no environmental the reactor.

accident. The presently specified system impact statement or environmental Date of/ssuance: October 7,1986.

response time (40 seconds) includes 10 assessment need be prepared for these Effective Date: October 7.1986.

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

generator and 30 seconds for opening prepared an environmental assessment facility Opemting License Nos.r the injection valse in the system. In under the special circumstances NPF-41 and NPF,51: Amendments response to staff questions, regarding provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has revised the Technical Specifications.

surveillance tests ofinjection valve made a determination based on that Dcte ofInitialNotice in Fedeml opening, the licensee proposed by letter assessment, it is so indicated. Register: September 2.1986 (51 FR dated September 25,1985 to include For further details with respect to the 31179).

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

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

times (tG seconds) are presently indicated. All of these items are LocalPublic Document Room included in Technical Specification available for public inspection at the Location: Phoenix Public Library.

4.8.1.1.2.This notice is based on the Commission's Public Document Room. Business. Science and Technology revised application from that initially 1717 H Street. NW., Washington. D.C . Department.12 East McDowell Road, noticed which results in greater and at the local public document rooms Phoenix. Arizona 85004.

assurance that the ECCS injection for the particular facilities involved. A valves will open within the design time. copy ofitems (2) and (3) may be Arkansas Power and Light Company, Appropriate changes to the initial notice obtained upon request addressed to the Docket No. 50-313. Arkansas Nuclear regarding ECCS injection valve response U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. One Unit No.1, Pope County, Arkansas time have been incorporated in this Washington. D.C. 20555. Attention: Date of application foramendment notice. Director. Division of Licensing. April 30,1986, as supplemented July 31.

Date ofpublication ofindividual 1 gas, l n ce n F Register: September 4. ma w m

,, )o ph ry u r t. Briefdescription of amendment:The Spiration date ofindividua/ notice Unit No.1. liouston County, Alabama a e en p vide anges to 1 October 6.1986 Date of applicalmnfor amendment- related to two new thermal hydrogen Lecc/Public Document Room july 8.1936.

location:llinds junior College. . recombiners to replace the existing

. Briefdescriptionofamendment %e McLendon Library. Raymond, amendment deletes the fuel rod weight hydro pc [,7$,e ,,e a} stem' l Octo ber 7,1986.

Mississippi 39154. limit in Technical Specification 5.3.1.

Uole afiS8uCDCet September 23.1988.

Effective date: October 7,1986, and NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF shall be implemented no later than AMENDMENT TO FACILITY Ef ti dat : Se tember 23,1986.

o r 8.1986.

OPERATING LICENSE pag;;;g, opg,g';,g' License No. NPF- Amendment No.:102.

During the period since publication of 2. Amendment revised the Technical Facility Opemting License No. DPR-

the last bi-weekly notice, the Specifications. 51. Amendment revised the Technical l

Commission has issued the following Date ofinitiolnotice in Federal Specifications.

amendments. The Commission has Register: August 13,1986 (51 FR 28993) Date ofinitialnotice in Federal determined for each of these The Commission's related evaluation of Register: June 4.1986 (51 FR 20367).

amendments that the application the amendment is contained in a Safety Since the initial notice, the licensee complies with the standards and Evaluation dated September 23.1988. No submitted a supplement dated July 31.

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act significant hazards consideration 1986, which responded to the of 1954 as amended (the Act), and the comments received: No. Commission's request for additional Commission's rules and regulations.The LocalPublic Document Room information. His information ,did not Commission has made appropriate location: George S. Houston Memorlat change the original application in any findings as required by the Act and the Library. 212 W. Burdeshaw Street. way. and therefore did not warrant Commission's rules and regulations in to Dothan. Alabama 36303. renoticing.

37524 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 204 / Wednesday. October 22, 1986 / Notices The Commission's related evaluation '

Facilities Opemting License No. The Commission's relat'e d evaluation of the amendment is contained in a DPR-26: Amendment revised the of the amendments fs contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 7.1966. Technical Specifications. Safety Evaluation dated October 1,1986.

No signifi. cant hazards consideration Date ofinitialnoticein Federal No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Register: July 16,1986 (51 FR 25768). comments received: No.

LocalPublic Document Room The Commiselan's telated evaluation LocalPublic Document Room location:Tomlinson Library, Arkansas of the amendment is contained in a location: York Coun ty Library,138 East Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas letter dated October 6.1986. Black Street, Rod ' . South Carolina 72801, No significant hazards considention 29730.

Carolina Power & Ught Company, ####"#####'C#

Duke Power Company, et al. Docket Dockets Nos. 50,325 and 56-324 Loc IPublicDocumentRoom No. 50413, Cataw ba Nuclear Station.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 . on h te Plains ic

, p Unit 1. York County, South Carolina and 2 runswick County, North York,10610. Date of applicationfor amendment June 6,1986.

Date of applicationfor amendment: 100 Duke Power Company Docket Nos, Briefdescription of amendment: The May 6,1985 as supplemented February 50-413 and SM14. Catawba Nuclear amendment updates and changes a 19,1986. Station, Units 1 and 2. York County, S**th C**lI"* license condition to allow extension of Briefdescription of amendment:ne time for the resolution of the amendments change the Technical Date of application for amendments: accumulator tank instrumentation issue.

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

surveillance requirements in TS Table November 27.1985, January 7 and July Effective date: October 6,1986. l 4.3.1'-1 for the Turbine Stop Valve- 31,1986. Amendment No. 15. I Closure and Turbine Control Valve Fast Brief description of amendments: The Facility Opemting License No. NPF-Closure Control Oil Pressure-law amendments lower the Low. low 35. Amendment revised the Operating i functions of the Reactor Protection Reactor Trip Signal for the steam License.

System.The amendments eliminate the generator level when the reactor is Date ofinitialnotice in Federal need to test these functions when operating above 30% power level. Register: August 13,1986 (51 FR 28996).

thermal power is below 30% of rated Date ofissuance: September 30,1986. He Commission's related evaluation power. Effective date: September 30,1986. of the amendment is contained in a Date ofissuance: October 1,1986. Amendment Nos.:13 and 5. Safety Evaluation dated October 6,1986.

Effective date: October 1,1966. Facility Opemting License Nos. NPF- No significant hazards consideration Amendment No.1100 and 129. 35 andNPF-52. Amendments revised comments received: No.

Facility Opemting Limnses Nos. the Technical Specifications. LocalPublicDocument Room DPR-71 andDPR-82. Amendment - Date ofinitialnotice in Federal location: York County Library,138 East tevised the TechnicalSpecifications. Register: August 27.1986 (51 FR 30564). Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina Date ofinitialnotice m Federal ne Commission's related evaluation 29730.

Register: June 19,1985 (50 FR 25484).The of the amendments is contained in a February 19,1986 submittal provided Duke Power Company Docket Nos. 50-Safety Evaluation dated September 30' 369 and 50-370, McCuire Nuclear additional clarifying information and 1986.

therefore did not change the .

Nos.igmficant hazards consideration Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg determination of the initial Federal County, North Carolina comments received: No.

Register Notice. LocalPublicDocument Room Dates of applicationsfor The Commission's related evaluation location York County Library 138 East amendments: July 15,1985, March 12, of the amendment is contained in a Black Street. Rock Hill, South Carolina May 14. and July 14,1986.

Safety Evaluetion dated October 1,1966. 29730. Brief description of amendments: The cg,,'[, [h, ' a c nsideration Duka Power Company, et al., Docket (e'c cat n able 3 2 re! ted to Nos. 56413 and 5H14, Catawba localPublic Document Room containment isolation valves.

location: Southport. Erunswick County Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. York Date cfissuance: September 29.1938.

Library,109 W. Moore Street, Southport, County. South Camlina Effective date: September 29.1986.

North Carolina 2646L Date of applicationforamendments: Amendment Nos.:63 and 44.

ju .1986, as supplemded July 24, Fachy Opem@ cense MsM Censolidated Edison Company of New York

• Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point # #" ^**" #' #*

• Nuclear Generating Unit No.2. Briefdescription of amendments:The Techmcal Specifications.

amendments change the Technical Date efinitia/ notice in Federal Westchester County, New iork Specifications related to application of a Register: August 27,1986 (51 FR 30569 Date of applicationfor amendment: positive moderator temperature and 30571).

May 9,1986. coefficient and to reflect the Cycle 2 The Commission's related evaluation Briefdescription of amendment:The refueling for Unit 1. of the amendments is contained in a amendment revises the Technical Date ofissuance: October 1.1986. Safety Evaluation dated September 29, Specifications to correct two Effective date: October 1.1986. 1936.

typographical errors in Specification Amendment Nos.:14 and 6. No significant hazards consideration 3.10 2, Power Distribution limits which Facility Operatmg License Nos. NPF- comments received: No.

were issued in Amendment No.110. 35 andNPF-52 Amendments revised LocalPublic Document Room Date ofissuance: October 6.1886. the Technical Specifications. location: Atkins Library, University of Effective date:Immediately. Date ofinitialnotice in Federal North Carolina Charlotte (UNCC Amendment No.:116. Register: August 27,1986 (51 FR 30567). Station). North Carolinc 28223.

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

County, North Caroline Pennsylvania Docket No.56-418. Grand Gulf Nuclear Date of applicationforamendments: Date of applicationforamendment- ",' ;ph U it 1, Clsiborne County, August 19,1985, as supplemented April june 2& 1986.

17 1986 Briefdescriptionofamendment The Date ofapplicationfor caendment:

Brief description of amendments: The amendment deletes one smoke detector August 12.1985, as amended September amendments change the Technical located in the Auxiliary Building at 25.1985 and as supplemented October 5 Specifications (TS) to revise the limiting elevation 281 feet in the cable galkry and October 22.1985 and May 30,198tt condition for operation action area (Fire Zone 4). The minimum March 21,198& as supplemented May statements to increase the time number of required operable smoke 30,1986, and July 15,1988. .

allowance for restoration of boron ' detectors (i.e., two) in this fire zona Briefdescription of amendment:The concentration in an accumulator that la remains unchanged. Besides the detector amendment would change Technicek out of specification, to eliminate being removed, there are currently three Specifications to reflect ramiifications of verification of boron concentration after other detectors in this fire zone. Instrumentation for the low pressure a greater than 1% volume increase frona emergency core cooling syssena the Date ofissuance: October 1.1986.

the normal makeup source, and to automatic depressurization system and reflect these changes in the TS Bases. Effective date: October 1.1986.

the seismic monitoring system.

Date ofissuance: September 30,1986. Amendment Na 121.

Date ofissaance: October 8,198&

Effective date: September 30.1988. Facility Opemting b. cense Na DPR-

'" d I Effective date: Changes to the Amendment Nos.:64 and 45. e ca n Technical Specification pages are Faci lity Opemting Ucense Nos. NPF-ggg,,7;,;g;,j,,,je,y,y,g,,,g eMn Qn dw &pM 9andNPF-t7. Amendments revised the modifications necessitating the changee Technical Specifications. Registen jh 30,1986 (51 R 27284). are completed and the affected systems The Commission's related evaluatm, a are made operable, but not later than Date ofinitia/noticein Federal of the amendmentis contained in a Register: August 27,1986 (51 FR 30589). startup following the first refueling The Commission's related evaluation *

• Y. Evaluation dated October 1.1988outage.

of the amendments is contained in a No significant hazards consideration AmendmentNa 20.

Safety Evaluation dated September 30, c mmente received: No. Facility Opemting Ucense Na NPF-1986. LocalPublic DocumentRoom 29. 'Ihis amendment revised the No significant hazards conside: 'on locadon: Government Publication

• Technical Specificationa.

comments received: No. Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Date ofinitialnoucein Fedesel LocalPublic DocumentRoom Mucati n Building.Comnmnmalthand Register: April 23,1986 (51 FR 154021; location: Atkins Library, University of Wahmt Streets. Harrisburg- August 27,1988 (51 FR 30577):

North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC Pennsylvama 17125. September 4,1986 (51 FR 31740).

Station). North Carolina 28223. Iowa Electric Light and Power Company, The Commission's related evafuation Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold of the amendment is contained in a et No. Energy Center, Linn County. Iowa Safety Evaluation dated October S.19EE

, laa mit No. 2, St. Lucie County. Flande Date fapplicationforamendment: co receiv Date of application of amendment. Decem r% 1985.

LocalPublic Document Races July 22.1986. BriefDescripuan afomendment This loca#on. Hinds W College.

Briefdescription of amend:nent:The amendment revises the DAEC Technical McLendon Library, Raymond.

amendment deleted the reference to the Specifications to incorporate MissirJippi 391%

maximum enrichment of mioad fuelin c ntamment isolation valves for the Technical Specrfication 53.1. I op B Jet Pump Sample line irr Niagara Mobewk Power Caeporatiost Date ofIssuance: September 30,1984. Technical Specification Tables 3.7-2 and Docket No. 5tMt30, Nine Mlle Point Effective Date:Sepiember 30,1986.

3.7-3. Nuclear Station. Unit No.1, Oswege Date ofismance: Octcher 8,1986. County, Now Yosk Amendmeat Na:15.

! Facility Operating License No. NPF- Effective date: October 8,1986 Ddte ofamendmer twquest-January to Amendment rensed the Technical Amendment Na:13a. 3,1986.

( Facdity Openting Ucense Na DP%

Specifications. Briefdescriptionof amendment Tbe Date ofinitia1 notice in Federal 49. Amendment revised the Technical amendment modifies Technical Registec August 27.1988 (51 FR 30501 at Specifications. Specification Table 10.14-1 and Neese 30572). Date ofinitialnoticein Federal for Table 3.6.1+-1 to include the addition The Commission's related evaluation Register: February 26,1986 (51 FR 8829 of an explanatory phrase to clarify the of the amendrnentis containedin a The Comnussion's related evaluation intention of the phrase"at all tunes?

Safety Evaluation dated September 30, of the amendment is contained in a Dateofissuonce: October 8,1988.

1986. Safety Evaluation dated October 8,198s. Effective date: October 8.19ee.

l No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration Amendment Na:88.

comn.ents received: No. comments received: No. Facility Opemting ueense Na DFA localPublic Document Roone LocalPublic Document Room - 63. Amendment revised the Techmtet location: Indian River Junior Colfege location- Cedar Rapids Public Library. Specifications.

Library,3:09 Virgina Avenue. FL Pierce, 500 First Streer. S.E. Cedar Rapids, Iowa Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Florida. 52401. Register: May 7,1986 (51 FR 1883t*

l

a 37526 Federol Regist:r / Vol. 51, No. 204 / Wednisday. October 22, 1988 / Notices The Commission's related evaluation Date ofinitialnotice in Federal No significant hazards consideration of the amendment is contained in a Register: July 30,1986 (51 FR 27288). comments received;No.

Safety Evaluation dated October 6,1986. The Commission's related evaluation LocalPublic Document Room No significant hazards consideration of the amendment is contained in a location: Chattanooga. Hamilton County comments received: No, Safety Evaluation dated September 30, Bicentennial Library,1001 Broad Street, Loco /Public Document Room 1986. Chattanooga. Tennessee 37401.

location: State University College at No significant hazards consideration Oswego. Penfield IJbrary--Documents, comments received: No. Virginia Electric and Power Company, et Oswego New York 13126. al., Docket No. 50-338, North Anna LocalPublic Document Room Power Station, Unit No.1. Louisa Pennsylvania Power and IJght location: Multnomah County Library' 801 S. W.10th Avenue. Portland.

Cog, Virginia Company, Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Oregon. Date of applicationforamendment-Unit 2. Luzerne County, Pennsylvania July 11,1986 Power Authority of The State of New York Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point Brief description of amendment: This Dates of application for amendment: amendment reinslates TS 3.4.9.1.C for April 30 June 19, July 25. September 16. Unit No. 3. Westchester County, New YOIk NA-1 which was deleted by and September 25,1986.

administrative error from the NA-1 TS Brief description of amendment: Thie Date of applicationfor amendment: in a previoue amendment.TS 3.4.9.1.C amendment revised the Susquehanna April 30.1986. specifies the necessary restrictions on Unit 2 Technical Specifications to Briefdescription of amendment:The temperature changes Juring inservice support the operation of this unit at full amendment revised the Technical hydrostatic and leak testing rated power during Cycle 2 operation. Specifications to add anticipatory ' surveillance.

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

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

Established operating limits for Exxon Date ofissuance: October 6,1986. Amendment No.:86, and the remaining GE fuel, (2) Effective date: October b.1986. Facility Operating License No. NPF-4:

established new Average Power Range Amendment No.:68. Amendment revised the Technical hlonitor (APRM) setpoints. (3) reflected Facilities Opetuting License No. Specifications.

the replacement of approximately 42 DPR-64; Amendment revised the percent of the core with ENC 9x9 fuel, Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Technical Specifications. Register: August 13,1986 (51 FR 29015).

and (4) modified the bases section. Date ofinitialnoticein Federal Date ofissuance: October 3,1986. he Commission's related evaluation Register: July 16,1986 (51 FR 25771). of the amendment is contained in a Effective date: Upon startup following The Commission's related evaluation Safety Evaluation dated September 26.

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

Amendment No.131. Safety Evaluation dated October 6,1986. No significant hazards consideration Facihty Operating License No. NPF- No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

22: Amendment revised the Techncial comments received: No. LocalPublic Document Room Specifications. LocalPablicDocument Room locations: Board of f apervisors Office, Date ofinitialnoticein Federal location: White Plains Public Library, Louisa County Couribouse, Louisa, Register: August 13,1986 (51 FR 29009). 100 Martine Avenue. White Plains. New Virginia 23093, and the Alderman ne Commission's related evaluation York.10610. Library, Manuscripts Department, of the amendment is contained in a .g.m U"iVersity of Virginia, Charlottesville, Safety Evaluation dated October 3,1986. Valley Authorim Dockd .

Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Virgima 22901.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Ilamilton NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF Courety, *lennessee AMENDMENT TO FACILITY loc n: sterh r e 1.i r r ,

Date of crolication for amendments: OPERATING LICENSE AND FINAL Reference Department,71 South May 25.1984'. as supplemented July 11, D ER O O Frenklia Street, Wilkes. Barre, 1986. g Pet.nsylvania 18701. Briefdescription of amendments:%e C OP TY O EARING Portland General Electric Company, et al., Docket No. 5&344 Trogan Nuclear "h" p .r ea ck om se le k (EXIGENT OR EMERGENCY test by the pressure decay method for 15 CIRCUMSTANCES)

Plant, Columbia County, Oregon minutes and add a requirement that the During the period since publication of Date of applicationforamendment: sealleakage be determined by precision the last bi. weekly notice, the July 12,1986. flow methods for at least two minutes. Commission has issued the following Erief description of amendment:ne Date ofissuance: October 2.1986. amendments. The Commission has amendment rewords the Surveillance Effective date. October 2,1986. determined for each of these Require:nents and Bases to reflect that Amendment Nos.:48 and 40. amendments that the application for the the Trojan ultimate heat sink is the Facility Operating License Nos. DPR- amendment complies with the standards Columbia River with the Cooling Tower 77andDPR-79. Amendments revised and requirements of the Atomic Energy basin serving as the backup. the Technical Specifications. Act of1954, as amended (the Act), and Date ofissuance: September 30.1986. Date ofinitia/ notice in Federal the Commission's rules and regulations.

Effective date: September 30.1986. Register: September 28,1984 (49 FR The Commission has made appropriate Amendment No.:120. 38410). findings as required by the Act and the facilities Operating License No. NPF- The Commission's related evaluation Commission's rules and regulations in 10 J: Amendment revised the Technical of the amendments is contained in a CFR Chapter 1 whiUi are set forth in the Specifications. Safety Evaluation dated October 2,1986. license amendment.

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

Determination and Opportunity for provision in 10 CHL 51.12(b) and has Any person who has filed a petition for llearing. For exigent circumstances, the made a determination based on that leave to intervene or who has been Commission has either issued a Federal assessment. it is so indicated. admitted as a party may amend the Register notice providing opportunity for For further details with respect to the petition without requesting leave of the public comment or has used local media action see(1) the application for Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the to provide notice to the public in the amendment. (2) the amendment to first prehearing conference scheduled in area surrounding a licensee's facility of Facility Operating Ucense, and (3) the the proceeding, but such an amended the licensee's application and of the (.,ommission's related letter. Safety petition must satisfy the specificity Commission's proposed determination Evaluation and/or Environmental requirements described above, of no significant hazards consideration. Assessment, as indicated. All of these Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to The Commission has provided a items are available for public inspection the first prehearing conference reasonable opportunity for the public to at the Commission's Public Document scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner comment, using its best efforts to make Room.171711 Street NW., Washington, shall file a supplement to the petition to available to the public means of DC, and at the local public document intervene which must include a list of communication for the public to respond room for the particular facility involved. the contentions which are sought to be quickly, and in the case of telephone A copy ofitems (2) and (3) may be litigated in the matter, and the bases for comments, the comments have been obtained uport request addressed to the each contention set forth with recorded or transcnbed as appropriate U.S. Nnclear Regulatory Commission. reasonable specificity. Contentions shall and the licensee has been informed of Washington, DC 20555. Attentiom be limited to matters within the scope of the public comments. Director. Division of Ucensing. the amendment under consideration. A In circumstances where failure to act The Commission is also offering an petitioner who fails to file such a in a timely way would have resulted, for opportunity for a hearing with respect t supplement which satisfies these example in derating or shutdown,of a the issuance of the amendments. By requirements with respect to at least one nuclear power plant or in prevention of November 21.1988, the licensee may file contention will not be permitted to either resumpt on of operation or of a request for a hearing with respect to participate as a party.

increase in power output up to the issuance of the amendment to the Those permitted to intervene become plant s licensed power level, the subject facility operating license and parties to the proceeding, subject to any Commission may not have had an any person whose m, terest may be limitations in the order granting leave to opportunity to provide for public affected by this proceeding and wh intervene, and have the opportunity to comment on its no significant hazards wishes to participate as a party m the determination. In such case, the license proceeding must file a written petition participate fully in the conduct of the hea .i c ing th pportum o amendment has been issued without for leave to intervene. Requests for a opportunity for comment. If there has hearing and petitions for leave to P been some time for public comment but intervene shall be filed in accordance witnesses.

less than 30 days, the Commission may with the Commission's " Rules of Since the Commission hee made a provide an opportunity for public Practice for Domestic Licensing final deternunation that the amendment co.nment. If comments have been Proceedi igs"in 10 CFR Part 2. If a involves no sign.ficant hazards requested, it is so stated. In either evrmt. request br a hearing or petition for consideration.if a hearing is requested, the State has been consulted by leave to intervene is filed by the above :t will not stay the effectiveness of the telephone w henever possible. date, the Commission or an Atomic amendment. Any hearing held would-Under its regulations, the Commission Safety and Licensmg Board, designated take place while the amendment la in may issue and make an amendment by the Commission or by the Chairman effect.

immediately effective. notwithstanding of the Atomic Safety and Licensing A regaest for a hearing or a petition the pendency before it of a request for a Board Panel, will rule on the request for leave to intervene must be filed with hearing from any person. in adva' ice of and/or petition and the Secretary or the the Secretary of the Commission. U.S.

the holding and completion of any designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Nuclear Regulatory Commission, required hearing, where it has Board willissue a notice of hearing or Washington, DC 20555. Attention:

determined that no significant hazards an appropriate order. Docketmg and Service Branch, or may consideretion is involved. As required by 10 CFR 2.714 a be delivered to the Commission's Public The Commission has applied the petition for leave to intervene shah set Document Room.1717 H Street. NW.,

standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made forth with particularity the interest of Washington. DC, by the above date.

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

Accordingly,the amendments have been with particular reference to the 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700).

Issued and made effectrre as indicated, following factors: (1) The nature of the The Westem Union operator should be Unless otherwise indicated. the petitioner's right ander the Act to be given Detagram Identrficathm Number l Commission has determined that these made a party to the proceeding; (2)The 3737 and the following message l

amendments satisfy tire criteria for nature and extent of the petitioner's addressed to fProject Directorp i

l I

1

37528 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 204 / W;dn;sdty. October 22, 1986 / Notices petitioner's name and telephone LocalPublic Document Room Public comments requested as to number, date petition was mailed; plant location: Oconee County Library,501 proposed no significant hazards name;and publication date and page West Southbroad Street, Walhalla, consideration: No.

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

A copy of the petition should also be The Commission's related evaluation Gulf States Utilities Company, Docket sent to the Office of the General No. 50-458. River Bend Station, Unit 1 f the amendment and final no Counsel-Bethesda, U.S. Nuclear significant hazards consideration Regulatory Commission Washington. West Feliciana Parish Louisiana ,

determination are contam, ed in a Safety DC 20555, and to the attorney for the Date of Applicationforamendment: Evaluation dated October 6.1986.

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

Nontimely filings of petitions for leave by letter dated September 19.1986. Esquire, Shaw, Pittman. Potts and to intervene, amended petitions. Brief description of amendment: This Trowbridge 1800 M Street NW., /

supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing willmot be entertained amendment changed Technical Washington, DC 20036.

./

Specifications Table 3.6.4-1 to permit LocalPublic Document Room absent a determination by the Valve IE51*MOVF076 not to be required location: Osterhout Free Library, Commission, the presiding officer or the to be operable through October 4.1986, Reference Department. 71 South Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, that thus not requiring Valve IE51*MOVF064 Franklin Street. Wilkes. Barre.

the petition and/or request should be to be shut and permitting RCIC to be Pennsylvania 18701.

granted based upon a balancing of the operable. Dated at Bethesda. Maryland this 15th day factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)- Date ofIssuance: October 9,1986. of October.1988.

(v) and 2.714(d). Effective Date: September 19.1986. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Duke Power Company. Dockets Nos.50- Amendment No.:2. George IAar.

28e 50-270 and so-287. 0conee Nuclear Facility Operating License No. NPF- Acting Director. Division ofPWR Licensing-Station, Units Nos. l.2 and 3, Oconee 47; Amendment revised the Technical A. Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation.

County, South Carolina Specifications.

(FR Doc. 86-23718 Filed 10-17-88: 8 45 am]

Date of applicationfor amendments Public comments requested as te a coa, m.

June 30,1986, as superseded September proposed no significant hazards 2,1986, consideration: No. - - -

Briefdescription of amendments: The Commission's related evaluation These amendments revise the Station's of the amendment, consultation with the common Technical Specifications (TSs) State of Louisiana, and final no to support the operation of Oconee Unit significant hazards considerations 2 at full rated power during the determination are contained in a Safety upcoming Cycle 9. In the initial Federal Evaluation dated October 9,1986.

. Register notice published September 11 Attorneyfe-/icensee: Troy B. Conner.

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

TSs in four areas (core protection safety Washington, DC 20006.

limits protective system maximum LocalPublic Document Room allowable setpoints. rod position limits Location: Government Documents and power imbalance limits).These Department, louisiana State University, amendments revise only the power Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.

irnbalance limits. NRCProject Director: Walter R.

Date ofissuance: October 8. MS ButIer.

Effective date: October 8,1986.

Arnendments Nos.:151,151 and 148. Pennsylvania Power and Light Facility Operating Licenses Nos. Company, Docket No.56-388, DPR,38. DPR-47 and DPR-55. Susquehana Steam Electric Station, Amendments revised the Technical Unit 2 Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Specifications. Date of application for amendment:

Public comments requested as to September 12,1986 (PLA-2719 and PLA-preposed no significant hazards consideration: Yes, published in the 2720)'

Brief description of amendment: This Federal Register on September 11,1986 amendment revises the Susquehanna (51 3 Unit 2 Technical Specification 3/4.911 Received: No.

The Commission's related evaluation to delete the applicability of the of the amendments, finding of exigent provisions of Technical Specification

' circumstances, and final determination 3.0.4 for the purpses of entering l

of no significant hazards consideration Operational Condition 5 from a defueled are contained in a Safety Evaluation condition during the first refueling dated October 8.1986. outage.

No significant hazards consideration Date ofissuance: October 6.1986.

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

Attorney forlicensee:l. Michael Amendment No.:29.

McGarry III. Bishop. Liberman. Cook. Focihty Operating License No. NPF-Purcell and Reynolds.120017th Street. 22: Amendment revised the Technical NW Weshington. DC 20036. Specifications.