99-32311. Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 1999)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 70077-70098]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-32311]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    
    
    Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
    Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
    
    I. Background
    
        Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular 
    biweekly notice. Public Law 97-415 revised section 189 of the Atomic 
    Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), to require the Commission to 
    publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, 
    under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision grants 
    the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective 
    any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the 
    Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards 
    consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a 
    request for a hearing from any person.
        This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
    proposed to be issued from November 20, 1999, through December 3, 1999. 
    The last biweekly notice was published on December 1, 1999 (64 FR 
    67330).
    
    Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility 
    Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
    Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
    
        The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
    amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
    the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 
    of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
    involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
    accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
    or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
    or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
    for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
    below.
        The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
    determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
    publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
    determination.
        Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
    expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
    change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely 
    way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
    the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
    the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
    the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
    determination will consider all public and State comments received 
    before action is taken. Should the Commission take this action, it will 
    publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance and provide for 
    opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that 
    the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
        Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules 
    Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and 
    Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
    Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the 
    publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. 
    Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint 
    North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 
    p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be
    
    [[Page 70078]]
    
    examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L 
    Street, NW., Washington, DC. The filing of requests for a hearing and 
    petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
        By January 14, 2000, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
    with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility 
    operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
    proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding 
    must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
    intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene 
    shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice 
    for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
    persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is 
    available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
    Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and electronically from 
    the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site, http://
    www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading Room). If a request for a hearing 
    or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the 
    Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the 
    Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
    Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or 
    the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of 
    a hearing or an appropriate order.
        As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene 
    shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
    the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
    the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
    why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
    following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the 
    Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
    the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
    proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be 
    entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition 
    should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of 
    the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person 
    who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been 
    admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of 
    the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
    scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy 
    the specificity requirements described above.
        Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
    scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to 
    the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions 
    which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must 
    consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
    raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a 
    brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise 
    statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the 
    contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
    contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references 
    to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
    aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
    facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information 
    to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material 
    issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within 
    the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be 
    one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 
    petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these 
    requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be 
    permitted to participate as a party.
        Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
    subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
    and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
    hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
    examine witnesses.
        If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
    determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
    final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
        If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
    no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
    amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
    request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
    of the amendment.
        If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
    significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place 
    before the issuance of any amendment.
        A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
    be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Docketing and 
    Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
    Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington DC, 
    by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of 
    the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so 
    inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 
    1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union 
    operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the 
    following message addressed to (Project Director): petitioner's name 
    and telephone number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and 
    publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. A 
    copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General 
    Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
    and to the attorney for the licensee.
        Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
    petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for a hearing will 
    not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the 
    presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the 
    petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of 
    factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
        For further details with respect to this action, see the 
    application for amendment which is available for public inspection at 
    the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L 
    Street, NW., Washington, DC, and electronically from the ADAMS Public 
    Library component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the 
    Electronic Reading Room)
    
    Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-317, Calvert Cliffs 
    Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Calvert County, Maryland
    
        Date of amendment request: November 18, 1999.
        Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment revises 
    the Unit 1 Heatup Curve (Technical Specification Figure 3.4.3-1), Unit 
    1 Cooldown Curve (Technical Specification Figure 3.4.3-2), and Unit 1 
    Maximum Power-Operated Relief Valve (PORV) Opening Pressure vs 
    Temperature Curve (Technical Specification Figure 3.4.12-1) to change 
    fluence level from 2.61 x 10\19\ n/cm \2\ to 4.49 x 1019 n/cm \2\ 
    (E>1MeV). This change reflects the new actual fluence level for which 
    these curves are valid, and is necessary to extend the
    
    [[Page 70079]]
    
    applicability of the curves for Unit 1 operation.
        Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
    determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
    provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
    consideration, which is presented below:
    
        1. Would not involve a significant increase in the probability 
    or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
        In accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, the Calvert 
    Cliffs pressure/temperature (P-T) limits for material fracture 
    toughness requirements of the reactor coolant pressure boundary 
    materials were developed using the methods of linear elastic 
    fracture mechanics and the guidance found in the American Society of 
    Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 
    III, Appendix G. The Calvert Cliffs (P-T) limits are based on 
    fluence level. The fluence level corresponds to the pressurized 
    thermal shock (PTS) screening criteria defined in 10 CFR 50.61 for 
    the critical elements. Methods described in the Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, are used to predict 
    the embrittlement effect of neutron irradiation on reactor vessel 
    materials. Regulatory Guide 1.99 defines embrittlement effect in 
    terms of adjusted reference temperatures (ART), which depends on the 
    material property of the PTS critical element.
        The proposed higher fluence level for the Technical 
    Specification P-T limits was made possible by the identification of 
    a new 10 CFR 50.61 critical element for fracture toughness 
    requirements for protection against PTS events. The material 
    properties of the new critical element resulted in an increase in 
    fluence level from 2.61 x 10 \19\ n/cm \2\ to 4.49 x 1019 n/cm \2\ 
    for the ART valves calculated using the material properties of the 
    old PTS critical element. the P-T limits analysis remain well within 
    the conservative acceptance limits of the ASME Boiler and Pressure 
    Vessel Code, Section III, Appendix G. Hence, with the new higher 
    fluence level, the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, requirement for 
    adequate margin to brittle failure during normal operation, 
    anticipated operational occurrences, and system hydrostatic tests, 
    for the reactor coolant pressure boundary materials, is maintained.
        Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant 
    increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
    previously evaluated.
        2. Would not create the possibility of a new or different type 
    of accident from any accidents previously evaluated.
        The implementation of the proposed revision has no significant 
    effect on either the configuration of the plant, or the manner in 
    which it is operated.
        Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
    of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
    evaluated.
        3. Would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
    safety.
        As discussed above, the P-T limits analysis remain well within 
    the conservative acceptance limits of the ASME Boiler and Pressure 
    Vessel Code, Section III, Appendix G. Hence, with the new higher 
    fluence level, the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, requirement for 
    adequate margin to brittle failure during normal operation, 
    anticipated operational occurrences, and system hydrostatic tests, 
    for the reactor coolant pressure boundary materials, is maintained.
        Therefore, this proposed modification does not significantly 
    reduce the margin of safety.
    
        The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
    this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
    satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
    amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
        Attorney for licensee: Jay E. Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, 
    Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
        NRC Acting Section Chief: Victor Nerses.
    
    Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, 
    Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, 
    Maryland
    
        Date of amendments request: November 19, 1999.
        Description of amendments request: The amendments request approval 
    of changes in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) that 
    constitute an unreviewed safety question (USQ) as described in 10 CFR 
    50.59. Specifically, these changes would be an increase in the 
    probability of occurrence of malfunction. Additionally, these changes 
    were not previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
        Regulations require that structures, systems, and components 
    important to safety be appropriately protected against the effects of 
    effects of missiles that might result from equipment failures. Failures 
    that could occur in the large turbines of the main turbine-generator 
    sets have the potential for producing large high-energy missiles 
    (hereinafter called ``turbine missiles''). Both of Baltimore Gas and 
    Electric Company's (BGE) turbine generator suppliers studied the 
    failure of the rotating elements of their turbine-generators. The UFSAR 
    only addresses a turbine missile hitting the Containment Building, 
    Control Room, Switchgear Room, and Waste Processing Area. As a result 
    of revising the Unit 1 and Unit 2 turbine missile analysis, BGE 
    determined that the discussion of turbine missiles in Section 5.3.1 of 
    the UFSAR was incomplete. Specifically, it did not discuss the 
    probability of a missile from the Unit 1 turbine-generator striking: 1) 
    the refueling water tanks; 2) the No. 11 Fuel Oil Storage Tank; or 3) 
    plant equipment through various roof slabs or through non-missile-proof 
    openings in the missile-proof walls. When these additional targets are 
    included, the total target area is increased. If the target area 
    increases, the probability of a turbine missile causing equipment 
    damage increases. It is this increase in probability that leads to a 
    USQ for a turbine missile from Unit 1. Note that by using methodologies 
    previously approved by NRC, the revised analysis concludes there is no 
    USQ for turbine missiles from the Unit 2 turbine-generator.
        The UFSAR change is considered a USQ for Units 1 and 2 because the 
    results of the revised Unit 1 turbine missile analysis for the 
    following unprotected rooms or components show an increase in 
    probability of occurrence of malfunction not previously evaluated in 
    the UFSAR:
        the Refueling Water Tanks;
        the No. 11 Fuel Oil Storage Tank (non-missile-proof);
        the saltwater pumps through roof hatches in the Intake Structure 
    roof;
        the roof slabs over the refueling Water Tank Pump Room, the Control 
    Room Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Equipment Room, 
    the Spent Fuel Pool Area Ventilation Equipment room, and a portion of 
    118 level roof over the fuel cask handling area;
        the Control Room HVAC Room through its non-missile-proof door; and
        the Unit 1 Auxiliary Building 45 Switchgear Room through 
    the its non-missile-proof doors.
        The probability of a missile from the Unit 1 turbine-generator 
    striking them is a negligible increase in the probability of occurrence 
    of malfunction of equipment associated with Unit 1 and 2. Upon approval 
    of this request, the UFSAR will be revised to reflect the proposed 
    turbine missile description. There is no USQ associated with the Unit 2 
    turbine-generator.
        Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
    determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
    provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
    consideration, which is presented below:
    
        1. Would not involve a significant increase in the probability 
    or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
        Regulations require that structures, systems, and components 
    important to safety be appropriately protected against the effects 
    of missiles that might result from equipment failures. Further that 
    could occur in the large turbines of the main turbine-generator sets 
    have the potential for producing large high-
    
    [[Page 70080]]
    
    energy missiles (hereinafter called turbine missiles). Both of our 
    turbine-generator suppliers studied the failure of the rotating 
    elements of their turbine-generators. The UFSAR only addresses 
    turbine missile hitting the Containment Building, Control Room, 
    Switchgear Room, and Waste Processing Area. As result of revising 
    the Unit 1 and Unit 2 turbine missile analysis, we determined that 
    the discussion of turbine missiles of the UFSAR was incomplete. From 
    the revised analysis, we determined Unit 1 and 2 USQs exist for the 
    following unprotected rooms or components (i.e., there is an 
    increase in probability of occurrence of malfunction not previously 
    evaluated in the UFSAR):
        the Refueling Water Tanks;
        the No. 11 Fuel Oil Storage Tank;
        the Saltwater Pumps through roof hatches in the Intake Structure 
    Roof;
        the roof slabs over the Refueling Water Tank Pump Room, the 
    Control Room Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) 
    Equipment Room, Spent Fuel Pool Area Ventilation Equipment Room, and 
    a portion of 118' level roof over the cask handling area;
        the Control Room HVAC Room through its non-missile-proof door; 
    and,
        the Unit 1 Auxiliary Building 45' Switchgear Room through its 
    non-missile-proof doors.
        The probability of a missile from the Unit 1 turbine-generator 
    striking them is a negligible, but greater than zero, increase in 
    the probability of occurrence of malfunction of equipment associated 
    with Units 1 and 2.
        For Unit 1 High Trajectory Missiles (HTM), the guidance of NUREG 
    0800, Standard Review Plan, is used as one acceptable method for 
    evaluating the risk. Use of this method is not a commitment to the 
    Standard Review Plan and does not incorporate the Standard Review 
    Plan into our licensing basis. The revised analysis shows that the 
    total target area considered vulnerable to an HTM is less than the 
    Standard Review Plan limit of 10,000 ft2 for each unit. 
    Therefore, the risk form an HTM is insignificant. Note that all of 
    the Units 1, 2, and Common structures listed above are equally 
    vulnerable to a Unit 1 HTM. Therefore, any risk increase to the 
    plant structures constitutes a USQ for Units 1 and 2.
        For Unit 1 Low-Trajectory Missiles (LTMs), protection for the 
    Auxiliary Building is provided by a 3' thick, concrete, missile-
    proof wall between the Turbine Building and the Auxiliary building 
    (the K-line wall). This wall is 3' thick below the 69' elevation and 
    2' thick above the 69' for areas protecting safety-related 
    equipment. The revised analysis evaluates the protection of Unit 1 
    equipment from a Unit 1 LTM. The 69' Control Room HVAC Equipment 
    Room and Unit 1 Auxiliary Building 45' Switchgear Room are protected 
    by the missile-proof walls except for the openings at the non-
    missile-proof doors. A turbine missile that hits one of these doors 
    is assumed to go through them, strike safety-related equipment in 
    the room, and cause it to fail. Recall that the Control Room HVAC 
    equipment is shared by both units. Therefore, any increase in risk 
    of failure of equipment in this room affects both Units 1 and 2.
        The risk associated with a turbine missile to either of these 
    doors is calculated using guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.115, 
    Revision 1, ``Protection Against Low-Trajectory Turbine Missiles.'' 
    This guidance states that the turbine missile hazard should be less 
    than 107. The missile hazard rate in the revised risk 
    analysis shows that the risk from LTMs from the Unit 1 General 
    Electric turbine-generator to the 69' Control Room HVAC Equipment 
    Room and Unit 1 Auxiliary Building 45' Switchgear room through these 
    non-missile-proof doors is less than 107.
        Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a 
    significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
    accident previously evaluated.
        2. Would not create the possibility of a new or different type 
    of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
        The proposed change makes no physical changes to the plant. 
    Specifically, the proposed change does not add new or modify 
    existing plant equipment such that it could become an accident 
    initiator different from its current role as an accident initiator. 
    The only change made by this activity is the revision of the UFSAR 
    to include the revised turbine missile analysis. The UFSAR chapter 1 
    drawings correctly depict the location of plant structures and 
    components, including the thickness of and the openings in the 
    missile-proof wall between the Turbine Building and the Auxiliary 
    building (the K-Line Wall). Therefore, the possibility of a new or 
    different type of accident is not created by the proposed change.
        3. Would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
    safety.
        The regulations require an evaluation of turbine missiles to 
    ensure that structures, systems, and components important to safety 
    be appropriately protected from them. Revised turbine missile 
    analysis have been performed consistent with appropriate regulatory 
    guidance (Regulatory Guide 1.115 and the Standard Review Plan). The 
    results of the revised analysis meet the acceptance criteria of the 
    guidance. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
    significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    
        The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
    this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
    satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
    amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
        Attorney for licensee: Jay E. Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, 
    Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
        NRC Acting Section Chief: Victor Nerses.
    
    Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-325, Brunswick 
    Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1, Brunswick County, North Carolina
    
        Date of amendment request: November 17, 1999.
        Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
    change Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1.2, ``Reactor Core Safety 
    Limits.'' The minimum critical power ratios (MCPR) for single and two 
    recirculation loop operation would be increased. In addition, the 
    reference in TS 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report,'' Item b.5, 
    would be removed.
        Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
    determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
    provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
    consideration, which is presented below:
    
        1. The proposed license amendments do not involve a significant 
    increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
    evaluated.
        The proposed license amendment will establish MCPR Safety Limit 
    values of 1.10 for two recirculation loop operation and 1.11 for single 
    recirculation loop operation. Additionally, the proposed license 
    amendment replaces an expiring cycle-specific reference in the list of 
    analytical methods approved for determining core operating limits in 
    Specification 5.6.5.b with a reference to a GE [General Electric] 
    topical report which has been accepted by the NRC.
        The methods for calculating the MCPR Safety Limit values have been 
    previously approved by the NRC and are described in GE's reload 
    licensing methodology topical report NEDE-24011-P-A. Use of these 
    methods ensures that the integrity of the fuel will be maintained 
    during normal operation and that the resulting MCPR Safety Limit values 
    satisfy the fuel design safety criteria that less than 0.1 percent of 
    the fuel rods experience boiling transition if the safety limits are 
    not violated. The change does not require any physical plant 
    modifications, physically affect any plant components, or allow the 
    plant to be operated any closer to fuel design limits. Therefore, the 
    proposed change to the MCPR Safety Limit values and to the list in 
    Specification 5.6.5.b of analytical methods approved for determining 
    core operating limits results no increase in the probability of a 
    previously evaluated accident.
        The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are dependent 
    on the initial conditions assumed for the analysis, the behavior of the 
    fuel during the accident, the availability and successful functioning 
    of the equipment assumed to operate in response to the accident, and 
    the setpoints at which these actions are initiated.
    
    [[Page 70081]]
    
        The methods used for calculating the MCPR Safety Limits have been 
    approved by the NRC and are described in GE's reload licensing 
    methodology topical report NEDE-24011, ``General Electric Standard 
    Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II).'' The proposed MCPR Safety 
    Limit values of 1.10 for two recirculation loop operation and 1.11 for 
    single recirculation loop operation will ensure that less than 0.1 
    percent of the fuel rods will experience boiling transition during any 
    plant operation if the limits are not violated. The proposed change to 
    the MCPR Safety Limit values does not affect the performance of any 
    equipment used to mitigate the consequences of a previously evaluated 
    accident. Also, the proposed change does not affect setpoints that 
    initiate protective or mitigative actions. No analysis assumptions are 
    violated and there are no adverse effects on the factors contributing 
    to offsite and onsite dose.
        Based on the determination of the proposed MCPR Safety Limit values 
    using conservative NRC-approved methods and the operability of plant 
    systems designed to mitigate the consequences of accidents not being 
    changed, the proposed change to the MCPR Safety Limit values and to the 
    list in Specification 5.6.5.b of analytical methods approved for 
    determining core operating limits does not significantly increase the 
    consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
        2. The proposed license amendments will not create the 
    possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
    previously evaluated.
        Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of 
    accident would require the creation of one or more new precursors of 
    that accident. New accident precursors may be created by 
    modifications of the plant configuration, including changes in 
    allowable modes of operation. This proposed license amendment does 
    not involve any physical alteration of plant systems and plant 
    equipment will not be operated in a different manner. As a result, 
    no new failure modes are being introduced. Therefore, the proposed 
    change to the MCPR Safety Limit values and to the list in 
    Specification 5.6.5.b of analytical methods approved for determining 
    core operating limits will not create the possibility of a new or 
    different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
        3. The proposed license amendments do not involve a significant 
    reduction in a margin of safety.
    
        The margin of safety is established through the design of the 
    plant structures, systems, and components; through the parameters 
    within which the plant is operated; through the establishment of 
    setpoints for actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an 
    event; and through margins contained within the safety analyses.
        The proposed change to the MCPR Safety Limit values and the list 
    in Specification 5.6.5.b of analytical methods approved for 
    determining core operating limits does not adversely impact the 
    performance of plant structures, systems, components, and setpoints 
    relied upon to respond to mitigate an accident. As previously 
    stated, the methods for calculating the MCPR Safety Limit values 
    have been previously approved by the NRC and are described in GE's 
    reload licensing methodology topical report NEDE-24011-P-A. Use of 
    these methods ensures that the resulting MCPR Safety Limit values 
    satisfy the fuel design safety criteria that less than 0.1 percent 
    of the fuel rods experience boiling transition if the safety limits 
    are not violated. As a result, the proposed changes do not 
    significantly impact any safety analysis assumptions or results. 
    Based on the assurance that the fuel design safety criteria will be 
    met, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in 
    a margin of safety.
        The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
    this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
    satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
    amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
        Attorney for licensee: William D. Johnson, Vice President and 
    Corporate Secretary, Carolina Power & Light Company, Post Office Box 
    1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
        NRC Section Chief: Richard P. Correia.
    
    Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon 
    Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North 
    Carolina
    
        Date of amendment request: November 19, 1999.
        Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
    revise the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Harris Nuclear Plant 
    (HNP) to incorporate American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
    D3803-1989, ``Standard Test Method for Nuclear-Grade Activated 
    Carbon,'' as the standard for testing nuclear-grade activated charcoal. 
    Specifically, TS 4.7.6 will be revised for the Control Room Emergency 
    Filtration System, TS 4.7.7 will be revised for the Reactor Auxiliary 
    Building Emergency Exhaust System, and TS 4.9.12 will be revised for 
    the Fuel Handling Building Emergency Exhaust System. These changes are 
    being proposed in accordance with NRC Generic Letter (GL) 99-02, 
    ``Laboratory Testing Of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal,'' dated June 
    3, 1999.
        Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
    determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
    provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
    consideration, which is presented below:
    
        1. The proposed license amendment does not involve a significant 
    increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
    previously evaluated.
        This proposed change to revise the standard to which activated 
    charcoal samples are tested will ensure that testing is accurate and 
    repeatable. This will help ensure that the Engineered Safety Feature 
    (ESF) ventilation systems are capable of performing their safety 
    function. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a 
    significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
    accident previously evaluated.
        2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
    new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
    evaluated.
        The proposed changes incorporate ASTM D3803-1989 as the testing 
    standard for nuclear-grade activated charcoal samples. This will 
    ensure that testing is accurate and repeatable. Plant structures, 
    systems, and components will not be operated in a different manner 
    as a result of these proposed changes and no physical modifications 
    to equipment are involved. Using the improved testing protocol does 
    not have the potential for creating the possibility of a new or 
    different type of accident from any previously evaluated.
        3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
    reduction in the margin of safety.
        The proposed changes do not change the manner in which 
    structures, systems or components are operated. Revising the 
    standard to which activated charcoal samples are tested will ensure 
    that testing is accurate and repeatable. This will help ensure that 
    the ESF ventilation systems are capable of performing their safety 
    function. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a reduction 
    in the margin of safety.
    
        The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
    this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
    satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
    amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
        Attorney for licensee: William D. Johnson, Vice President and 
    Corporate Secretary, Carolina Power & Light Company, Post Office Box 
    1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
        NRC Section Chief: Richard P. Correia.
    
    Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities 
    Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois
    
        Date of amendment request: November 12, 1999.
        Description of amendment request: The proposed change revises the 
    pressure-temperature limits by revising
    
    [[Page 70082]]
    
    the heatup, cooldown and inservice test limitations for the Reactor 
    Pressure Vessel to a maximum of 32 Effective Full Power Years.
        Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
    determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
    provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
    consideration, which is presented below:
    
        1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
    probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously 
    evaluated?
        The proposed changes do not modify the reactor coolant pressure 
    boundary, do not make changes in operating pressure, materials or 
    seismic loading. The proposed changes adjust the reference 
    temperature for the limiting beltline material to account for 
    radiation effects and provide the same level of protection as 
    previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not adversely affect 
    the integrity of the reactor coolant system (RCS) such that its 
    function in the control of radiological consequences is affected. 
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
    increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
    previously evaluated.
        2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
    kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
        The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
    different kind of accident previously evaluated for Quad Cities 
    Nuclear Power Station. No new modes of operation are introduced by 
    the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not create any 
    failure mode not bounded by previously evaluated accidents. Use of 
    the revised pressure-temperature (P-T) curves will continue to 
    provide the same level of protection as was previously reviewed and 
    approved.
        Further, the proposed changes to the P-T curves do not affect 
    any activities or equipment, and are not assumed in any safety 
    analysis to initiate any accident sequence for Quad Cities Nuclear 
    Power Station. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the 
    possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
    previously evaluated.
        3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
    of safety?
        The proposed changes reflect an update of the P-T curves to 
    extend the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) operating limit to 32 
    Effective Full Power Years (EFPY). The revised curves are based on 
    the latest American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) guidance 
    and actual operational data for the units. This proposed changes are 
    acceptable because the ASME guidance maintains the relative margin 
    of safety commensurate with that which existed at the time that the 
    ASME Section IX Appendix G was approved in 1974. Therefore, the 
    proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the 
    margin of safety.
    
        The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
    this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
    satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
    requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
        Attorney for licensee: Ms. Pamela B. Stroebel, Senior Vice 
    President and General Counsel, Commonwealth Edison Company, P.O. Box 
    767, Chicago, Illinois 60690-0767.
        NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. Mendiola.
    
    Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities 
    Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois
    
        Date of amendment request: November 16, 1999.
        Description of amendment request: The proposed change modifies the 
    surveillance requirements for Functional Unit 3 on Table 4.1.A-1 due to 
    replacement of the Reactor Pressure Vessel Steam Dome pressure switches 
    with analog trip units.
        Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
    determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
    provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
    consideration, which is presented below:
    
        Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
    probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously 
    evaluated?
        During the upcoming refueling outages at Quad Cities Nuclear 
    Power Station, Unit 1 and Unit 2, a design change will be 
    implemented that upgrades the existing Reactor Vessel Steam Dome-
    High instrumentation from a pressure switch to an analog trip unit 
    device. Analog trip units are proven technology that are more 
    reliable than existing equipment. Analog trip units are used in 
    various applications of Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, including 
    the Reactor Protection System (RPS) low water level trip function.
        The proposed change adds a CHANNEL CHECK and 31-day trip unit 
    calibration requirement for the Reactor Vessel Steam Dome Pressure--
    High RPS trip function. This requirement is not applicable to the 
    existing instrumentation because the Barksdale pressure switches are 
    non-indicating and do not employ trip units.
        Technical Specification (TS) requirements that govern 
    operability or routine testing of plant instruments are not assumed 
    to be initiators of any analyzed event because these instruments are 
    intended to prevent, detect, or mitigate accidents. Therefore, these 
    changes will not involve an increase in the probability of 
    occurrence of an accident previously evaluated. Additionally, these 
    changes will not increase the consequences of an accident previously 
    evaluated because the proposed change does not adversely impact 
    structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The planned instrument 
    upgrade is a more reliable design than existing equipment. The 
    proposed change establishes requirements that ensures components are 
    operable when necessary for the prevention or mitigation of 
    accidents or transients. Furthermore, there will be no change in the 
    types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents 
    released offsite. For these reasons, the proposed changes do not 
    involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
    an accident previously evaluated.
        Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
    kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
        The proposed changes support a planned instrumentation upgrade 
    by incorporating Surveillance Requirements required to ensure 
    operability. The change does not adversely impact the manner in 
    which the instrument will operate under normal and abnormal 
    operating conditions. Therefore, these changes provide an equivalent 
    level of safety and will not create the possibility of a new or 
    different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 
    The changes in methods governing normal plant operation are 
    consistent with the current safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, 
    these changes will not create the possibility of a new or different 
    kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
        Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
    safety?
        The proposed change supports a planned instrumentation upgrade. 
    The proposed change does not affect the probability of failure or 
    availability of the affected instrumentation. The addition of a 
    CHANNEL CHECK and 31-day trip unit calibration for RPS Functional 
    Unit 3 (Reactor Vessel Steam Dome Pressure--High) is a conservative 
    change that aligns the surveillance requirements for a planned 
    instrumentation upgrade with that of similar instrumentation. 
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes will not result 
    in a reduction in the margin of safety.
    
        The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
    this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
    satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
    requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
        Attorney for licensee: Ms. Pamela B. Stroebel, Senior Vice 
    President and General Counsel, Commonwealth Edison Company, P.O. Box 
    767, Chicago, Illinois 60690-0767.
        NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. Mendiola.
    
    Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, WNP-2, Benton County, Washington
    
        Date of amendment request: October 13, 1999.
        Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
    revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.6.1, Table 3.3.6-1, ``Primary 
    Containment
    
    [[Page 70083]]
    
    Isolation Instrumentation.'' This amendment requests that Function 5 on 
    Table 3.3.6-1, ``RHR SDC System Isolation,'' be modified by removing 
    footnote (d). Footnote (d) states, ``Only the inboard trip system is 
    required in Modes 1, 2, and 3, as applicable, when the outboard valve 
    control is transferred to the alternate remote shutdown panel and the 
    outboard valve is closed.'' The outboard suction valve, RHR-V-8, is no 
    longer used as a high/low pressure interface in the residual heat 
    removal (RHR) system. Valve RHR-V-9, which is in series with valve RHR-
    V-8, is now used as the high/low pressure interface valve. Valve RHR-V-
    9 is operable in all modes of operation and therefore, footnote (d) is 
    no longer needed. The current footnote (e) will be relettered as 
    footnote (d) for consistency.
        Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
    determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
    provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
    consideration, which is presented below:
    
        1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
    in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
    evaluated.
        This change involves the probability and consequences of 
    accidents associated with the isolation of the RHR SDC [shutdown 
    cooling] mode of RHR operation. Isolation is provided if high 
    temperatures occur in RHR pump rooms or heat exchanger areas, if 
    reactor vessel water level is low, or if reactor vessel pressure is 
    high.
        FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] Chapter 15, ``Accident 
    Analysis,'' describes two events associated with the RHR system 
    during SDC operation. FSAR Section 15.1.6, ``Inadvertent Residual 
    Heat Removal Shutdown Cooling Operation,'' describes the impact of 
    system operation during startup or cool-down when the reactor is 
    near critical. The proposed change removes the exemption for the 
    second trip system to isolate RHR SDC operation. There will be no 
    change in the probability or consequences of this accident as a 
    result of the proposed change.
        The second accident is described in FSAR Section 15.2.9, 
    ``Failure of Residual Heat Removal Shutdown Cooling.'' It postulates 
    the failure of the RHR system to function in SDC mode. The 
    evaluation assumes a failure of the SDC mode of operation but does 
    not disable the remaining modes of RHR operation. The alternate SDC 
    paths involve the use of the safety relief valves to establish a 
    cooling flow path to the containment suppression pool. That 
    evaluated accident does not result in any fuel failure. The proposed 
    change will not result in an increase in the probability of fuel 
    failures. The evaluated accident does result in normal coolant 
    activity being released to the suppression pool through the safety 
    relief valves. The proposed activity will not result in a change in 
    the release of this coolant activity. The proposed change requires 
    the removal of the exemption for the second trip system to isolate 
    SDC and will have no impact on the probability or consequences of 
    that accident.
        Therefore, the operation of WNP-2 in accordance with the 
    proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the 
    probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
        2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
    or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
    evaluated.
        The proposed change will not cause any new inadvertent SDC 
    startup, loss of water inventory or loss of coolant accidents 
    (LOCA). New or different inadvertent RHR SDC startup accidents are 
    not possible because this change is only a further restriction on 
    system operation. The LOCA during Mode 3 is bounded by the LOCA 
    defined for Modes 1 and 2. No new primary system LOCA can be 
    initiated because of this change.
        Therefore, the operation of WNP-2 in accordance with the 
    proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or 
    different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
        3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
    in a margin of safety.
        The removal of an exemption for the second trip system, as 
    proposed by this change, will increase the probability that leaks 
    and high pressure will be isolated. Therefore, operation of WNP-2 in 
    accordance with the proposed amendment will not decrease the margin 
    of safety. Therefore, the operation of WNP-2 in accordance with the 
    proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the 
    margin of safety.
    
        The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
    this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
    satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
    amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
        Attorney for licensee: Thomas C. Poindexter, Esq., Winston & 
    Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005-3502.
        NRC Section Chief: Stephen Dembek.
    
    Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
    458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
    
        Date of amendment request: October 25, 1999.
        Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment 
    would revise the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) surveillance capsule 
    withdrawal schedule for the River Bend Station. The first surveillance 
    capsule would be withdrawn at 13.4 effective full power years (EFPY) 
    rather than 10.4 EFPY.
        Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
    determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
    provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
    consideration, which is presented below:
    
        1. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
    the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
        Pressure-temperature (P/T) limits (RBS Technical Specifications 
    Figure 3.4.11-1) are imposed on the reactor coolant system to ensure 
    that adequate safety margins against nonductile or rapidly 
    propagating failure exist during normal operation, anticipated 
    operational occurrences, and system hydrostatic tests. The P/T 
    limits are related to the nil-ductility reference temperature, 
    RTNDT, as described in ASME [American Society of 
    Mechanical Engineers] Section III, Appendix G. Changes in the 
    fracture toughness properties of RPV beltline materials, resulting 
    from the neutron irradiation and the thermal environment, are 
    monitored by a surveillance program in compliance with the 
    requirements of 10 CFR [Part] 50, Appendix H. The effect of neutron 
    fluence on the shift in the nil-ductility reference temperature of 
    pressure vessel steel is predicted by methods given in RG 
    [Regulatory Guide] 1.99, [Revision] 2.
        River Bend's current P/T limits, as well as those for the 
    planned increase in reactor thermal power (``Power Uprate''), were 
    established based on adjusted reference temperatures developed in 
    accordance with the procedures prescribed in RG 1.99, [Revision] 2, 
    Regulatory Position 1. Calculation of adjusted reference temperature 
    by these procedures includes a margin term to ensure conservative, 
    upper-bound values are used for the calculation of the P/T limits. 
    Revision of the first capsule withdrawal schedule will not affect 
    the P/T limits because they will continue to be established in 
    accordance with Regulatory Position 1 or other NRC [Nuclear 
    Regulatory Commission]-approved procedures. When permitted (two or 
    more credible surveillance data sets available), Regulatory Position 
    2 (or other NRC-approved) methods for determining adjusted reference 
    temperature will be followed.
        This change is not related to any accidents previously 
    evaluated. The proposed change is a revision of the first 
    surveillance capsule withdrawal time, identified in TRM [Technical 
    Requirements Manual] Table 3.4.11-1, from 10.4 EFPY to 13.4 EFPY. 
    This change will not affect P/T limits as given in RBS Technical 
    Specifications Figure 3.4.11-1 or USAR Figures 5.3-4a and 5.3-4b. 
    This change will not affect any plant safety limits or limiting 
    conditions of operation. The proposed change will not affect reactor 
    pressure vessel performance as no physical changes are involved and 
    RBS vessel P/T limits will remain conservative in accordance with RG 
    1.99, [Revision] 2 requirements. The proposed change will not cause 
    the reactor pressure vessel or interfacing systems to be operated 
    outside of their design or testing limits. Also, the proposed change 
    will not alter any assumptions previously made in evaluating the 
    radiological consequences of accidents. Therefore, the probability 
    or
    
    [[Page 70084]]
    
    consequences of accidents previously evaluated will not be increased 
    by the proposed change.
        2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
    or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
    evaluated.
        The proposed change revises the first RPV material surveillance 
    capsule withdrawal time in TRM Table 3.4.11-1 from 10.4 EFPY to 13.4 
    EFPY. This proposed change does not involve a modification of the 
    design of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed 
    change will not impact the manner in which the plant is operated as 
    plant operating and testing procedures will not be affected by the 
    change. The proposed change will not degrade the reliability of 
    structures, systems, or components important to safety (ITS) as 
    equipment protection features will not be deleted or modified, 
    equipment redundancy or independence will not be reduced, supporting 
    system performance will not be downgraded, the frequency of 
    operation of ITS equipment will not be increased, and increased or 
    more severe testing of ITS equipment will not be imposed. No new 
    accident types or failure modes will be introduced as a result of 
    the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not create 
    the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from that 
    previously evaluated.
        3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
    in a margin of safety.
        As stated in Section 5.3.2 of the River Bend Safety Evaluation 
    Report (NUREG-0989), ``Appendices G and H of 10 CFR [Part] 50 
    describe the conditions that require pressure-temperature limits and 
    provide the general bases for these limits. These appendices 
    specifically require that pressure-temperature limits must provide 
    safety margins at least as great as those commended in the ASME Code 
    [American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel 
    Code], Section III, Appendix G. * * * Until the results from the 
    reactor vessel surveillance program become available, the staff will 
    use Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.99, Revision 1 [now Revision 2], to 
    predict the amount of neutron irradiation damage.* * * The use of 
    operating limits based on these criteria--as defined by applicable 
    regulations, codes, and standards--will provide reasonable assurance 
    that nonductile or rapidly propagating failure will not occur, and 
    will constitute an acceptable basis for satisfying the applicable 
    requirements of General Design Criteria (GDC) 31.''
        Bases for RBS Technical Specification 3.4.11 states: ``The P/T 
    limits are not derived from Design Basis Accident (DBA) analyses. 
    They are prescribed during normal operation to avoid encountering 
    pressure, temperature, and temperature rate of change conditions 
    that might cause undetected flaws to propagate and cause nonductile 
    failure of the RCPB [reactor coolant pressure boundary], a condition 
    that is unanalyzed. * * * Since the P/T limits are not derived from 
    any DBA, there are no acceptance limits related to the P/T limits. 
    Rather, the P/T limits are acceptance limits themselves since they 
    preclude operation in an unanalyzed condition.''
        The proposed change will not affect any safety limits, limiting 
    safety system settings, or limiting conditions of operation. The 
    proposed change does not represent a change in initial conditions, 
    or in a system response time, or in any other parameter affecting 
    the course of an accident analysis supporting the Bases of any 
    Technical Specification. The proposed change does not involve 
    revision of the P/T limits but rather a revision of the withdrawal 
    time for the first surveillance capsule. The current P/T limits (and 
    proposed P/T limits for Power Uprate) were established based on 
    adjusted reference temperatures for vessel beltline materials 
    calculated in accordance with Regulatory Position 1 of RG 1.99, 
    [Revision] 2. P/T limits will continue to be revised as necessary 
    for changes in adjusted reference temperature due to changes in 
    fluence according to Regulatory Position 1 until two or more 
    credible surveillance data sets become available. When two or more 
    credible surveillance data sets become available, P/T limits will be 
    revised as prescribed by Regulatory Position 2 of RG 1.99, 
    [Revision] 2, or other NRC-approved guidance. Therefore, the 
    proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in any 
    margins of safety.
    
        The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
    this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
    satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
    amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
        Attorney for licensee: Mark Wetterhahn, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
    1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
        NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm.
    
    Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
    458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
    
        Date of amendment request: October 29, 1999.
        Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment 
    would change the River Bend Station (RBS) Updated Safety Analysis 
    Report (USAR), Sections 6.2 and 15.6, to incorporate a revision to the 
    calculation of radiological doses following a loss-of-coolant-accident 
    (LOCA). The LOCA dose calculation was revised as a result of (1) an 
    increase in the calculated positive pressure period (PPP) to account 
    for a new phenomenon identified in Information Notice (IN) 88-76, (2) a 
    more conservative Suppression Pool water volume value, (3) an 
    additional and more conservative liquid leakage term identified in IN 
    91-56, and (4) changes to the engineered safety features (ESF) systems 
    liquid leakage term.
        Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
    determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
    provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
    consideration, which is presented below:
    
        1. The proposed changes do not significantly increase the 
    probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
        The analysis changes described by this proposed change to the 
    USAR are not initiators to events, and therefore do not involve the 
    probability of an accident. These modifications reflect a revision 
    to the post-LOCA dose calculation. USAR Section 15.6.5.1.1 states 
    that ``There are no realistic, identifiable events which would 
    result in a pipe break inside of containment of the magnitude 
    required to cause an accident LOCA * * * However, since such an 
    accident provides an upper limit estimate to the resultant effects 
    for this category of pipe breaks, it is evaluated without the causes 
    being identified.'' The analysis itself does not identify an 
    initiator, nor is it the initiator, of a LOCA. There was no physical 
    change to the plant. The increase to the positive pressure period 
    (PPP) was the result of inclusion of phenomena not previously 
    included in the analysis documented in the SAR [safety analysis 
    report], and does not have any impact on accident probability. The 
    inclusion of an NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] Information 
    Notice (IN) 91-56 unfiltered liquid leakage term is voluntary and 
    conservative in nature and does not represent an additional failure 
    that could be construed as an initiator to the event. Therefore, 
    this change does not increase the probability of occurrence of an 
    accident evaluated previously in the safety analysis report (SAR).
        This proposed change to the USAR does increase the consequences 
    of an accident, but the increase is not significant. While the 
    calculated off-site and control room doses of a LOCA did increase in 
    Revision 1 to the post-LOCA dose calculation (reference 1) [of 
    Attachment 1 to the License Amendment request, dated October 29, 
    1999], the dose consequences remain below the regulatory limits of 
    10 CFR [Part] 100 and 10 CFR [Part] 50, Appendix A, General Design 
    Criteria (GDC) 19 as approved per NUREG-0989 and License Amendment 
    98. This change first accounts for the potential effect that 
    differential temperature has on the PPP assumed in the off-site dose 
    analysis. It also conservatively includes an additional liquid 
    leakage term to account for concerns documented in NRC IN 91-56. 
    Neither of these changes has an appreciable effect on vital area 
    access doses. Vital area access dose calculations were not revised 
    since they still conservatively reflect the expected doses discussed 
    in USAR Section 12.3.2.4. There is no impact on equipment 
    qualification associated with the proposed change since other gross 
    conservatisms exist in those calculations (e.g., not crediting 
    suppression pool scrubbing) compared to the post-LOCA dose 
    calculations. Reanalysis of the off-site dose calculation 
    demonstrates that the revised doses are increased only slightly and 
    remain significantly less than the regulatory
    
    [[Page 70085]]
    
    limits. With the IN 91-56 term excluded, the increases are within 
    the criteria of less than 10 [percent] of the remaining margin, 
    which is the criteria to be applied in the revised 10 CFR 50.59 rule 
    for minimal increases in consequences. With the IN 91-56 term 
    included, only the 30 day LPZ [low-population zone] thyroid dose 
    exceeds the ``minimal increase'' criterion. Note the doses 
    documented in Table 1 [of Attachment 1 to the License Amendment 
    request, dated October 29, 1999], above, are less than the values 
    which had been documented in the SAR prior to the implementation and 
    NRC approval of TS [Technical Specifications] Amendment 98. 
    Therefore, this change does not significantly increase the 
    consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR.
        2. The proposed changes would not create the possibility of a 
    new or different kind of accident from any [previously] analyzed.
        This change does not represent a physical change to the plant. 
    It does not involve initiators to any events in the SAR, nor does 
    the activity create the possibility for any new accidents. Rather, 
    this change is a result of the evaluation of the most limiting LOCA 
    which can occur at River Bend. Therefore, this change involves no 
    new system interactions and does not create the possibility of an 
    accident of a different type than those presently evaluated in the 
    SAR.
        3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
    in a margin of safety.
        The off-site dose consequences are calculated in accordance with 
    regulatory guidance found in Regulatory Guide 1.3 and the SRP 
    [Standard Review Plan], consistent with the analyses submitted to 
    and approved by the NRC in support of Technical Specification 
    Amendment 98. It is conservatively assumed that 100 [percent] fuel 
    failure occurs instantaneously upon a recirculation pipe break, thus 
    2 of the 3 fission product barriers are immediately eliminated. 
    These assumptions are made without any causes for the failures being 
    identified. Containment is assumed to leak at its maximum allowable 
    leakage rate (0.26 [percent] per day) for the duration of the event. 
    Other leakage terms, such as engineered safety feature (ESF) 
    leakage, are assumed to be equal to the Technical Specification 
    limit. Since assumptions are made in accordance with Technical 
    Specification allowable values and regulatory guidance, this change 
    does not reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any 
    RBS Technical Specification.
    
        The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
    this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
    satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
    amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
        Attorney for licensee: Mark Wetterhahn, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
    1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
        NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm.
    
    Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
    Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
    
        Date of amendment request: July 29, 1998, as supplemented by 
    letters dated July 29, October 28, and November 11, 1999.
        Description of amendment request: The amendment will revise 
    Technical Specification 6.9.1.11.1 by replacing the existing reference 
    to the Asea Brown Boveri-Combustion Engineering, Inc. (ABB CE), small 
    break loss-of-coolant (SBLOCA) accident emergency core cooling system 
    (ECCS) performance evaluation model with the revised model described in 
    the topical report CENPD-137, Supplement 2, P-A, April 1998.
        Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
    determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
    provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
    consideration, which is presented below:
    
        1. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this 
    proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or 
    consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
        Response: No.
        The SBLOCA ECCS performance evaluation is conducted to 
    demonstrate conformance of light water nuclear power reactors to the 
    ECCS acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46. The proposed change is 
    associated with an analysis performed using the new Supplement 2 
    version of the ABB CE SBLOCA Model (S2M). The primary objective of 
    the analysis using the new model was to determine the impact of a 
    reduction in High Pressure Safety Injection (HPSI) pump flow rate 
    due to increased surveillance test measurement uncertainty. NRC 
    approval of the new S2M model for use in licensing applications of 
    CE design pressurized water reactors was obtained on December 16, 
    1997 (Reference 1) [of license amendment request dated July 29, 
    1998].
        A comparison of the Waterford 3 results for the limiting SBLOCA 
    scenario using the new S2M model against the criteria of 10 CFR 
    50.46(b) is summarized below:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Parameter                    Result             Criterion
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peak Cladding Temperature......  1929 deg.F.........  2200 deg.F
    Maximum Cladding Oxidation.....  8.09%..............  17%
    Core-wide Cladding Oxidation...  <0.58%............. 1%="" coolable="" geometry="" maintained...="" yes................="" yes="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" these="" results="" remain="" within="" the="" criteria="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50.46.="" thus,="" application="" of="" the="" new="" s2m="" model="" to="" the="" eccs="" at="" waterford="" will="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" 2.="" will="" operation="" of="" the="" facility="" in="" accordance="" with="" this="" proposed="" change="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" type="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated?="" response:="" no.="" the="" proposed="" change="" will="" not="" create="" any="" new="" system="" connections="" or="" interactions.="" thus,="" no="" new="" modes="" of="" failure="" are="" introduced.="" the="" revised="" methods="" used="" in="" the="" new="" sbloca="" evaluation="" model="" and="" their="" impact="" has="" been="" reviewed="" and="" approved="" by="" the="" nrc="" (reference="" 1)="" [of="" license="" amendment="" request="" dated="" july="" 29,="" 1998].="" therefore,="" the="" proposed="" change="" will="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" 3.="" will="" operation="" of="" the="" facility="" in="" accordance="" with="" this="" proposed="" change="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety?="" response:="" no.="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" alter="" the="" ability="" of="" the="" eccs="" to="" maintain="" compliance="" with="" 10="" cfr="" 50.46="" criteria.="" the="" revised="" methods="" used="" in="" the="" new="" sbloca="" evaluation="" model="" and="" their="" impact="" has="" been="" reviewed="" and="" approved="" by="" the="" nrc="" (reference="" 1)="" [of="" license="" amendment="" request="" dated="" july="" 29,="" 1998].="" therefore,="" the="" proposed="" change="" will="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" standards="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" n.s.="" reynolds,="" esquire,="" winston="" &="" strawn,="" 1400="" l="" street="" nw.,="" washington,="" dc="" 20005-3502.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" robert="" a.="" gramm.="" firstenergy="" nuclear="" operating="" company,="" docket="" no.="" 50-346,="" davis-besse="" nuclear="" power="" station,="" unit="" 1,="" ottawa="" county,="" ohio="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" september="" 7,="" 1999.="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" change="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" section="" 3/4.3.2.1,="" ``safety="" features="" [[page="" 70086]]="" actuation="" system="" instrumentation,''="" table="" 3.3-4,="" ``safety="" features="" actuation="" system="" instrumentation="" trip="" setpoints,''="" to="" remove="" the="" ``trip="" setpoint''="" values="" and="" modify="" the="" ``allowable="" values''="" for="" containment="" pressure-high="" and="" containment="" pressure-high-high,="" and="" would="" change="" ts="" 3/4.3.2,="" ``reactor="" protection="" system="" and="" safety="" system="" instrumentation,''="" to="" reflect="" the="" above="" change.="" basis="" for="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination:="" as="" required="" by="" 10="" cfr="" 50.91(a),="" the="" licensees="" have="" provided="" their="" analysis="" of="" the="" issue="" of="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration,="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" the="" davis-besse="" nuclear="" power="" station="" (dbnps)="" has="" reviewed="" the="" proposed="" changes="" and="" determined="" that="" a="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" does="" not="" exist="" because="" operation="" of="" the="" davis-besse="" nuclear="" power="" station,="" unit="" no.="" 1,="" in="" accordance="" with="" these="" changes="" would:="" 1a.="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" because="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" change="" any="" accident="" initiator,="" initiating="" condition,="" or="" assumption.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" would="" revise="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" table="" 3.3-4,="" safety="" features="" actuation="" system="" instrumentation="" trip="" setpoints,="" to="" administratively="" remove="" from="" ts="" the="" ``trip="" setpoint''="" values="" for="" instrument="" string="" functional="" unit="" ``b'',="" containment="" pressure--high,="" and="" functional="" unit="" ``c'',="" containment="" pressure--="" high-high,="" and="" also="" modify="" the="" ts="" ``allowable="" values''="" entry="" for="" these="" same="" functional="" units,="" consistent="" with="" updated="" calculations="" using="" current="" setpoint="" methodology.="" the="" trip="" setpoint="" values="" removed="" from="" ts="" will="" be="" maintained="" in="" dbnps-controlled="" documents.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" to="" limiting="" condition="" for="" operation="" (lco)="" 3.3.2.1="" and="" bases="" 3/4.3.1="" and="" 3/4.3.2="" are="" associated="" with="" these="" changes.="" 1b.="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" because="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" invalidate="" assumptions="" used="" in="" evaluating="" the="" radiological="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident,="" do="" not="" alter="" the="" source="" term="" or="" containment="" isolation,="" and="" do="" not="" provide="" a="" new="" radiation="" release="" path="" or="" alter="" radiological="" consequences.="" 2.="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" because="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" introduce="" a="" new="" or="" different="" accident="" initiator="" or="" introduce="" a="" new="" or="" different="" equipment="" failure="" mode="" or="" mechanism.="" 3.="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety="" because="" the="" proposed="" changes="" establish="" an="" error="" analysis="" that="" has="" been="" shown="" to="" adequately="" preserve="" the="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" standards="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" mary="" e.="" o'reilly,="" attorney,="" firstenergy="" corporation,="" 76="" south="" main="" street,="" akron,="" oh="" 44308.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" anthony="" j.="" mendiola.="" firstenergy="" nuclear="" operating="" company,="" docket="" no.="" 50-346,="" davis-besse="" nuclear="" power="" station,="" unit="" 1,="" ottawa="" county,="" ohio="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 2,="" 1999.="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would:="" (1)="" relocate="" the="" boric="" acid="" addition="" tank="" system="" (baas)="" and="" borated="" water="" storage="" tank="" requirements="" of="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" 3/4.1.2.8,="" reactivity="" control="" systems--borated="" water="" sources--shutdown,="" in="" their="" entirety="" to="" the="" davis-besse="" nuclear="" power="" station="" updated="" safety="" analysis="" report="" (usar)="" technical="" requirements="" manual="" (trm);="" (2)="" relocate="" the="" baas="" requirements="" of="" ts="" 3/4.1.2.9,="" reactivity="" control="" systems--borated="" water="" sources--operating,="" to="" the="" usar="" trm,="" except="" for="" portions="" applicable="" to="" the="" bwst="" which="" are="" proposed="" to="" be="" deleted="" because="" they="" are="" redundant="" to="" the="" existing="" provisions="" of="" ts="" 3/4.5.4,="" emergency="" core="" cooling="" systems--borated="" water="" storage="" tank;="" (3)="" modify="" ts="" 3/4.1.2.1,="" reactivity="" control="" systems--borated="" water="" sources--="" shutdown,="" by="" deleting="" references="" to="" ts="" 3.1.2.8;="" (4)="" incorporate="" corresponding="" changes="" to="" the="" ts="" index;="" and="" (5)="" incorporate="" corresponding="" changes="" to="" the="" ts="" bases.="" basis="" for="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination:="" as="" required="" by="" 10="" cfr="" 50.91(a),="" the="" licensees="" have="" provided="" their="" analysis="" of="" the="" issue="" of="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration,="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" the="" proposed="" changes="" would:="" 1a.="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" because="" no="" change="" is="" being="" made="" to="" any="" accident="" initiator.="" no="" previously="" analyzed="" accident="" scenario="" is="" changed,="" and="" initiating="" conditions="" remain="" as="" previously="" analyzed.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" would="" relocate="" the="" boric="" acid="" addition="" system="" (baas)="" and="" borated="" water="" storage="" tank="" (bwst)="" requirements="" of="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" 3/4.1.2.8="" in="" their="" entirety="" to="" the="" davis-besse="" nuclear="" power="" station="" (dbnps)="" updated="" safety="" analysis="" report="" (usar)="" technical="" requirements="" manual="" (trm).="" the="" proposed="" changes="" would="" also="" relocate="" the="" baas="" requirements="" of="" ts="" 3/4.1.2.9="" to="" the="" usar="" trm.="" the="" portions="" of="" ts="" 3/4.1.2.9="" applicable="" to="" the="" bwst="" are="" proposed="" to="" be="" deleted="" because="" they="" are="" completely="" redundant="" to="" the="" existing="" provisions="" of="" ts="" 3/4.5.4,="" emergency="" core="" cooling="" systems--borated="" water="" storage="" tank.="" associated="" with="" these="" changes,="" ts="" 3/4.1.2.1="" is="" proposed="" to="" be="" revised="" to="" delete="" references="" to="" ts="" 3.1.2.8.="" the="" appropriate="" changes="" to="" the="" ts="" index="" are="" also="" proposed,="" as="" well="" as="" changes="" to="" ts="" bases="" 3/4.1.2.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" are="" also="" consistent="" with="" the="" improved="" ``standard="" technical="" specifications--babcock="" and="" wilcox="" plants,''="" nureg-1430,="" revision="" 1.="" 1b.="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" because="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" affect="" accident="" conditions="" or="" assumptions="" used="" in="" evaluating="" the="" radiological="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" alter="" the="" source="" term,="" containment="" isolation="" or="" allowable="" radiological="" releases.="" the="" chemical="" addition="" system,="" which="" includes="" the="" baas,="" is="" not="" credited="" for="" mitigation="" of="" any="" usar="" chapter="" 6="" or="" chapter="" 15="" accidents.="" the="" bwst="" is="" credited="" for="" mitigation="" of="" usar="" chapter="" 6="" and="" chapter="" 15="" accidents,="" as="" part="" of="" the="" emergency="" core="" cooling="" system="" (eccs).="" however,="" the="" bwst's="" requirements="" concerning="" eccs="" are="" provided="" in="" separate="" ts="" 3/4.5.4,="" that="" is="" not="" proposed="" for="" change.="" 2.="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" because="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" change="" the="" way="" the="" plant="" is="" operated,="" and="" no="" new="" or="" different="" failure="" modes="" have="" been="" defined="" for="" any="" plant="" system="" or="" component="" important="" to="" safety.="" no="" new="" or="" different="" types="" of="" failures="" or="" accident="" initiators="" are="" introduced="" by="" the="" proposed="" changes.="" 3.="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety="" because="" the="" proposed="" changes="" are="" administrative="" in="" nature,="" consisting="" of="" deletion="" and/or="" relocation="" of="" certain="" ts="" requirements="" into="" licensee-controlled="" documents,="" and="" have="" no="" bearing="" on="" the="" margin="" of="" safety="" which="" exists="" in="" the="" present="" ts="" or="" usar.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" standards="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" mary="" e.="" o'reilly,="" attorney,="" firstenergy="" corporation,="" 76="" south="" main="" street,="" akron,="" oh="" 44308.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" anthony="" j.="" mendiola.="" [[page="" 70087]]="" firstenergy="" nuclear="" operating="" company,="" docket="" no.="" 50-346,="" davis-besse="" nuclear="" power="" station,="" unit="" 1,="" ottawa="" county,="" ohio="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 2,="" 1999.="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would:="" (1)="" modify="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" 3/4.3.2.1,="" safety="" features="" actuation="" system="" instrumentation,="" table="" 3.3-4,="" safety="" features="" actuation="" system="" instrumentation="" trip="" setpoints,="" to="" remove="" ``trip="" setpoint''="" values="" for="" instrument="" string="" functional="" unit="" ``f,''="" borated="" water="" storage="" tank="" (bwst)="" level;="" (2)="" modify="" ts="" 3/4.3.2.1,="" table="" 3.3-4,="" functional="" unit="" ``f,''="" allowable="" values,="" to="" make="" it="" consistent="" with="" updated="" calculations="" using="" current="" setpoint="" methodology;="" (3)="" modify="" limiting="" condition="" for="" operation="" (lco)="" 3.3.2.1,="" safety="" features="" actuation="" system="" instrumentation="" to="" reflect="" removal="" of="" the="" ``trip="" setpoint''="" for="" this="" functional="" unit;="" (4)="" change="" the="" footnote="" associated="" with="" ts="" 3/4.3.2.1,="" table="" 3.3-4,="" functional="" unit="" ``f,''="" allowable="" values,="" to="" indicate="" that="" the="" allowable="" values="" apply="" to="" the="" channel="" functional="" test="" and="" no="" longer="" applies="" to="" the="" channel="" calibration;="" (5)="" modify="" ts="" 3/4.1.2.9,="" reactivity="" control="" systems--borated="" water="" sources--operating,="" and="" ts="" 3/4.5.4,="" emergency="" core="" cooling="" systems--="" borated="" water="" storage="" tank,="" to="" increase="" the="" minimum="" bwst="" water="" level;="" and="" (6)="" make="" corresponding="" changes="" to="" ts="" bases="" 3/4.1.2,="" boration="" systems,="" 3/4.3.1="" and="" 3/4.3.2,="" reactor="" protection="" system="" and="" safety="" system="" instrumentation,="" and="" 3/4.5.4,="" borated="" water="" storage="" tank.="" basis="" for="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination:="" as="" required="" by="" 10="" cfr="" 50.91(a),="" the="" licensees="" have="" provided="" their="" analysis="" of="" the="" issue="" of="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration,="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" the="" proposed="" changes="" would:="" 1a.="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" because="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" change="" any="" accident="" initiator,="" initiating="" condition,="" or="" assumption.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" would="" revise="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" table="" 3.3.4,="" safety="" features="" actuation="" system="" instrumentation="" trip="" setpoints,="" to="" administratively="" remove="" from="" the="" ts="" the="" ``trip="" setpoint''="" values="" for="" instrument="" string="" functional="" unit="" ``f,''="" borated="" water="" storage="" tank="" (bwst)="" level,="" and="" also="" modify="" the="" ts="" ``allowable="" values="" entry="" for="" this="" same="" functional="" unit,="" consistent="" with="" updated="" calculations="" using="" current="" setpoint="" methodology.="" the="" trip="" setpoint="" values="" removed="" from="" the="" ts="" will="" be="" maintained="" in="" davis-besse="" nuclear="" power="" station="" (dbnps)-controlled="" documents.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" to="" limiting="" condition="" for="" operation="" (lco)="" 3.3.2.1="" and="" bases="" 3/4.3.1="" and="" 3/4.3.2="" are="" associated="" with="" these="" changes.="" associated="" with="" the="" above="" changes,="" ts="" 3/4.1.2.9="" and="" ts="" 3/="" 4.5.4="" are="" proposed="" to="" be="" revised="" to="" increase="" the="" minimum="" available="" bwst="" borated="" water="" volume="" requirement="" as="" specified="" in="" lco="" 3.1.2.9.b.1="" and="" lco="" 3.5.4.a.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" to="" bases="" 3/4.1.2="" and="" bases="" 3/4.5.4="" are="" associated="" with="" these="" changes.="" these="" changes="" are="" consistent="" with="" the="" revised="" setpoint="" analyses.="" 1b.="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" because="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" invalidate="" assumptions="" used="" in="" evaluating="" the="" radiological="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident,="" do="" not="" alter="" the="" source="" term="" or="" containment="" isolation,="" and="" do="" not="" provide="" a="" new="" radiation="" release="" path.="" 2.="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" because="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" introduce="" a="" new="" or="" different="" accident="" initiator="" or="" introduce="" a="" new="" or="" different="" equipment="" failure="" mode="" or="" mechanism.="" 3.="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety="" because="" the="" proposed="" changes="" establish="" an="" error="" analysis="" that="" has="" been="" shown="" to="" adequately="" preserve="" the="" margin="" of="" safety,="" and="" the="" trip="" setpoint="" values="" removed="" from="" the="" ts="" will="" be="" maintained="" in="" the="" dbnps="" updated="" safety="" analysis="" report,="" with="" proposed="" changes="" subject="" to="" the="" regulatory="" requirements="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50.59.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" standards="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" mary="" e.="" o'reilly,="" attorney,="" firstenergy="" corporation,="" 76="" south="" main="" street,="" akron,="" oh="" 44308.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" anthony="" j.="" mendiola.="" firstenergy="" nuclear="" operating="" company,="" docket="" no.="" 50-346,="" davis-besse="" nuclear="" power="" station,="" unit="" 1,="" ottawa="" county,="" ohio="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 8,="" 1999.="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" relocate="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" 6.5.1,="" station="" review="" board,="" and="" ts="" 6.5.2,="" company="" nuclear="" review="" board,="" to="" davis-besse="" updated="" safety="" analysis="" report="" chapter="" 17.2,="" quality="" assurance="" during="" the="" operations="" phase,="" also="" known="" as="" the="" quality="" assurance="" program.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" are="" consistent="" with="" the="" recommendations="" in="" nrc="" administrative="" letter="" 95-06,="" ``relocation="" of="" technical="" specification="" administrative="" controls="" related="" to="" quality="" assurance.''="" basis="" for="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination:="" as="" required="" by="" 10="" cfr="" 50.91(a),="" the="" licensees="" have="" provided="" their="" analysis="" of="" the="" issue="" of="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration,="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" the="" proposed="" changes="" would:="" 1a.="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" because="" no="" accident="" initiators,="" conditions="" or="" assumptions="" are="" affected="" by="" the="" proposed="" changes="" to="" section="" 6.0,="" administrative="" controls,="" of="" the="" technical="" specifications="" (ts).="" the="" proposed="" changes="" to="" relocate="" the="" detailed="" listings="" of="" ts="" section="" 6.5.1,="" station="" review="" board="" (srb),="" and="" ts="" 6.5.2,="" company="" nuclear="" review="" board="" (cnrb),="" to="" the="" davis-besse="" nuclear="" power="" station="" (dbnps)="" quality="" assurance="" program="" in="" chapter="" 17="" of="" the="" updated="" safety="" analysis="" report="" are="" consistent="" with="" the="" nrc's="" guidance="" in="" nureg-1430,="" ``standard="" technical="" specifications--babcock="" and="" wilcox="" plants,''="" revision="" 1="" and="" nrc="" administrative="" letter="" 95-06,="" ``relocation="" of="" technical="" specification="" administrative="" controls="" related="" to="" quality="" assurance,''="" dated="" december="" 12,="" 1995.="" these="" ts="" being="" relocated="" will="" remain="" subject="" to="" the="" controls="" of="" other="" nrc="" regulations="" (e.g.,="" 10="" cfr="" 50.54(a)).="" the="" proposed="" changes="" to="" the="" ts="" index="" reflect="" the="" relocation="" of="" ts="" 6.5.1="" and="" ts="" 6.5.2.="" these="" are="" administrative="" changes="" that="" do="" not="" reduce="" the="" duties="" or="" responsibilities="" of="" the="" srb="" and="" cnrb="" in="" ensuring="" the="" safe="" operation="" of="" the="" dbnps.="" 1b.="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" because="" no="" accident="" conditions="" or="" assumptions="" are="" affected="" by="" the="" proposed="" changes.="" as="" described="" above,="" these="" changes="" are="" consistent="" with="" the="" improved="" ``standard="" technical="" specifications--babcock="" and="" wilcox="" plants''="" (nureg-1430="" revision="" 1)="" and="" administrative="" letter="" 95-06,="" and="" are="" administrative="" changes.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" alter="" the="" source="" term,="" containment="" isolation,="" or="" allowable="" releases.="" the="" proposed="" changes,="" therefore,="" will="" not="" increase="" the="" radiological="" consequences="" of="" a="" previously="" evaluated="" accident.="" 2.="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" because="" no="" new="" accident="" initiators="" or="" assumptions="" are="" introduced="" by="" the="" proposed="" changes,="" which="" involve="" the="" administrative="" location="" for="" listing="" srb="" and="" cnrb="" responsibilities.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" alter="" any="" accident="" scenarios.="" 3.="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety="" because="" the="" proposed="" changes="" are="" administrative="" and="" do="" not="" reduce="" or="" adversely="" affect="" the="" capabilities="" of="" any="" plant="" structures,="" systems="" or="" components="" to="" perform="" their="" nuclear="" safety="" functions.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" standards="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" [[page="" 70088]]="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" mary="" e.="" o'reilly,="" attorney,="" firstenergy="" corporation,="" 76="" south="" main="" street,="" akron,="" oh="" 44308.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" anthony="" j.="" mendiola.="" firstenergy="" nuclear="" operating="" company,="" docket="" no.="" 50-440,="" perry="" nuclear="" power="" plant,="" unit="" 1,="" lake="" county,="" ohio="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 1,="" 1999="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" license="" amendment="" is="" prescribed="" by="" the="" requested="" actions="" of="" generic="" letter="" 99-02,="" ``laboratory="" testing="" of="" nuclear-grade="" activated="" charcoal.''="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" will="" modify="" the="" existing="" ventilation="" filter="" testing="" program="" contained="" in="" technical="" specification="" 5.5.7.c="" by="" replacing="" the="" reference="" to="" astm="" d3803-1986,="" the="" standard="" for="" charcoal="" filter="" testing="" for="" esf="" ventilation="" systems,="" with="" astm="" d3803-1989.="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" will="" also="" incorporate="" the="" suggested="" safety="" factor="" for="" charcoal="" filter="" efficiency="" regarding="" methyl="" iodide="" penetration.="" basis="" for="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination:="" as="" required="" by="" 10="" cfr="" 50.91(a),="" the="" licensee="" has="" provided="" its="" analysis="" of="" the="" issue="" of="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" 1.="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" change="" to="" reference="" american="" society="" for="" testing="" and="" materials="" (astm)="" d3803-1989,="" ``standard="" test="" method="" for="" nuclear-="" grade="" activated="" carbon,''="" for="" laboratory="" testing="" of="" engineered="" safety="" features="" (esf)="" ventilation="" systems="" in="" lieu="" of="" astm="" d3803-1986="" is="" prescribed="" by="" the="" requested="" actions="" of="" generic="" letter="" (gl)="" 99-02,="" ``laboratory="" testing="" of="" nuclear-grade="" activated="" charcoal.''="" the="" use="" of="" astm="" d3803-1989="" allows="" for="" increased="" accuracy="" in="" monitoring="" the="" degradation="" of="" esf="" ventilation="" system="" activated="" carbon="" (charcoal)="" over="" time="" and="" is="" a="" reproducible="" method="" for="" determining="" the="" realistic="" capability="" of="" charcoal.="" the="" 1989="" standard="" is="" endorsed="" by="" the="" nrc="" and="" is="" considered="" to="" be="" more="" stringent="" regarding="" testing="" criteria="" than="" the="" previous="" referenced="" standard="" (1986).="" gl="" 99-02="" encourages="" addressees,="" if="" necessary,="" to="" amend="" their="" technical="" specifications="" (ts)="" to="" reference="" astm="" d3803-1989="" for="" charcoal="" filter="" laboratory="" testing="" for="" esf="" ventilation="" systems.="" in="" response="" to="" the="" referenced="" gl,="" the="" proposed="" change="" modifies="" the="" existing="" perry="" nuclear="" power="" plant="" (pnpp)="" ventilation="" filter="" testing="" program="" (vftp)="" contained="" in="" the="" pnpp="" ts="" to="" reference="" astm="" d3803-1989="" as="" the="" standard="" for="" charcoal="" filter="" laboratory="" testing="" for="" esf="" ventilation="" systems.="" in="" addition,="" the="" proposed="" change="" incorporates="" the="" safety="" factor="" suggested="" within="" gl="" 99-02="" for="" charcoal="" filter="" efficiency="" with="" respect="" to="" methyl="" iodide="" penetration.="" the="" proposed="" change="" provides="" assurance="" for="" compliance="" with="" the="" current="" licensing="" basis="" regarding="" dose="" limits="" of="" general="" design="" criteria="" (gdc)="" 19="" of="" appendix="" a="" to="" 10="" cfr="" 50="" and="" 10="" cfr="" 100.="" the="" proposed="" change="" ensures="" originally="" stated="" design="" criteria="" are="" met="" and="" therefore="" does="" not="" affect="" the="" precursors="" for="" accidents="" or="" transients="" analyzed="" in="" chapter="" 15="" of="" the="" pnpp="" updated="" safety="" analysis="" report="" (usar).="" with="" the="" proposed="" change,="" the="" radiological="" consequences="" are="" the="" same="" as="" previously="" stated="" in="" the="" usar.="" therefore,="" the="" implementation="" of="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" 2.="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" change="" to="" reference="" astm="" d3803-1989="" for="" the="" laboratory="" testing="" of="" charcoal="" filters="" of="" esf="" ventilation="" systems="" in="" lieu="" of="" astm="" d3803-1986="" is="" prescribed="" by="" the="" requested="" actions="" of="" gl="" 99-02.="" astm="" d3803-1989="" is="" endorsed="" by="" the="" nrc="" and="" is="" considered="" a="" more="" stringent="" testing="" standard="" than="" the="" previous="" referenced="" standard,="" astm="" d3803-1986.="" in="" addition,="" the="" proposed="" change="" incorporates="" the="" safety="" factor="" suggested="" within="" gl="" 99-02="" for="" charcoal="" filter="" efficiency="" with="" respect="" to="" methyl="" iodide="" penetration.="" the="" proposed="" change="" provides="" assurance="" for="" compliance="" with="" the="" current="" licensing="" basis="" regarding="" dose="" limits="" of="" gdc="" 19="" of="" appendix="" a="" to="" 10="" cfr="" 50="" and="" 10="" cfr="" 100.="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" change="" the="" assumptions="" used="" in="" any="" accident="" analysis="" and="" no="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" is="" created.="" the="" proposed="" change="" ensures="" originally="" stated="" design="" criteria="" are="" met="" and="" therefore="" does="" not="" affect="" the="" precursors="" for="" accidents="" or="" transients="" analyzed="" in="" chapter="" 15="" of="" the="" pnpp="" usar.="" therefore,="" the="" implementation="" of="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" 3.="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" proposed="" change="" is="" prescribed="" by="" the="" requested="" actions="" of="" gl="" 99-02.="" the="" use="" of="" astm="" d3803-1989="" allows="" for="" increased="" accuracy="" in="" monitoring="" the="" degradation="" of="" esf="" ventilation="" systems="" charcoal="" over="" time="" and="" is="" a="" very="" accurate="" and="" reproducible="" method="" for="" determining="" the="" realistic="" capability="" of="" charcoal.="" astm="" d3803-1989="" is="" considered="" a="" more="" stringent="" testing="" standard="" than="" the="" previous="" referenced="" standard,="" astm="" d3803-1986.="" additionally,="" as="" specified="" in="" gl="" 99-02,="" a="" safety="" factor="" of="" 2="" has="" been="" utilized="" in="" the="" calculation="" of="" the="" revised="" allowable="" penetration="" based="" upon="" the="" credited="" efficiency="" approved="" by="" the="" nrc.="" the="" proposed="" change="" provides="" assurance="" for="" compliance="" with="" the="" current="" licensing="" basis="" regarding="" dose="" limits="" of="" gdc="" 19="" of="" appendix="" a="" to="" 10="" cfr="" 50="" and="" 10="" cfr="" 100.="" therefore,="" the="" implementation="" of="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" reduction="" in="" the="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" standards="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" mary="" e.="" o'reilly,="" attorney,="" firstenergy="" corporation,="" 76="" south="" main="" street,="" akron,="" oh="" 44308.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" anthony="" j.="" mendiola.="" firstenergy="" nuclear="" operating="" company,="" docket="" no.="" 50-440,="" perry="" nuclear="" power="" plant,="" unit="" 1,="" lake="" county,="" ohio="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 1,="" 1999="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" technical="" specification="" surveillance="" requirement="" (sr)="" 3.6.1.7.4="" requires="" that="" each="" containment="" spray="" nozzle="" be="" verified="" unobstructed="" on="" a="" 10-year="" frequency.="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" revise="" the="" frequency="" for="" sr="" 3.6.1.7.4="" from="" once="" every="" 10="" years="" to="" only="" those="" conditions="" when="" maintenance="" is="" performed="" which="" could="" result="" in="" nozzle="" blockage.="" basis="" for="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination:="" as="" required="" by="" 10="" cfr="" 50.91(a),="" the="" licensee="" has="" provided="" its="" analysis="" of="" the="" issue="" of="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" 1.="" the="" proposed="" change="" would="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" change="" revises="" the="" surveillance="" frequency="" from="" every="" 10="" years="" to="" following="" maintenance="" that="" could="" result="" in="" nozzle="" blockage.="" analyzed="" events="" are="" initiated="" by="" the="" failure="" of="" plant="" structures,="" systems="" or="" components.="" the="" containment="" spray="" system="" is="" not="" considered="" as="" an="" initiator="" of="" any="" analyzed="" event.="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" have="" a="" detrimental="" impact="" on="" the="" integrity="" of="" any="" plant="" structure,="" system="" or="" component="" that="" initiates="" an="" analyzed="" event.="" the="" proposed="" change="" will="" not="" alter="" the="" operation="" of,="" or="" otherwise="" increase="" the="" failure="" probability="" of="" any="" plant="" equipment="" that="" initiates="" an="" analyzed="" accident.="" as="" a="" result,="" the="" probability="" of="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated,="" is="" not="" significantly="" increased.="" the="" proposed="" change="" revises="" the="" surveillance="" frequency.="" reduced="" testing="" is="" acceptable="" where="" operating="" experience="" has="" shown="" that="" these="" components="" usually="" pass="" the="" surveillance="" when="" performed="" at="" the="" specified="" interval,="" thus="" the="" frequency="" is="" acceptable="" from="" a="" reliability="" standpoint.="" the="" proposed="" containment="" spray="" nozzle="" surveillance="" frequency="" has="" been="" established="" based="" on="" achieving="" acceptable="" levels="" of="" equipment="" [[page="" 70089]]="" reliability.="" this="" change="" does="" not="" affect="" the="" plant="" design.="" due="" to="" the="" plant="" design,="" the="" spray="" header="" is="" maintained="" dry="" and="" alarmed="" on="" water="" intrusion.="" formation="" of="" significant="" corrosion="" products="" is="" unlikely.="" due="" to="" its="" location="" at="" the="" top="" of="" the="" containment,="" introduction="" of="" foreign="" material="" from="" exterior="" to="" the="" header="" is="" unlikely.="" since="" maintenance="" that="" could="" introduce="" foreign="" material="" is="" the="" most="" likely="" cause="" for="" obstruction,="" testing="" or="" inspection="" following="" such="" maintenance="" would="" verify="" the="" nozzle(s)="" being="" unobstructed,="" and="" the="" system="" would="" be="" capable="" of="" performing="" its="" safety="" function.="" as="" a="" result,="" the="" consequences="" of="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" are="" not="" significantly="" affected.="" therefore,="" this="" change="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" 2.="" the="" proposed="" change="" would="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" of="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" physical="" alteration="" of="" the="" plant="" (no="" new="" or="" different="" type="" of="" equipment="" will="" be="" installed)="" or="" a="" change="" in="" the="" methods="" governing="" normal="" plant="" operation.="" thus,="" this="" change="" does="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" 3.="" the="" proposed="" change="" would="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" margin="" of="" safety="" for="" this="" system="" is="" based="" on="" the="" capacity="" of="" the="" spray="" headers.="" since="" the="" system="" is="" not="" susceptible="" to="" corrosion="" induced="" obstruction="" or="" obstruction="" from="" external="" to="" the="" system,="" and="" performance="" of="" maintenance="" on="" the="" system="" would="" require="" evaluation="" of="" the="" potential="" for="" nozzle="" blockage="" and="" the="" need="" for="" a="" test="" or="" inspection,="" the="" spray="" header="" nozzles="" will="" not="" become="" blocked="" in="" the="" event="" that="" the="" safety="" function="" is="" required.="" therefore,="" the="" capacity="" of="" the="" system="" would="" remain="" unaffected.="" hence,="" this="" change="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" the="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" standards="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" mary="" e.="" o'reilly,="" attorney,="" firstenergy="" corporation,="" 76="" south="" main="" street,="" akron,="" oh="" 44308.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" anthony="" j.="" mendiola.="" florida="" power="" and="" light="" company,="" et="" al.,="" docket="" nos.="" 50-335="" and="" 50-389,="" st.="" lucie="" plant,="" unit="" nos.="" 1="" and="" 2,="" st.="" lucie="" county,="" florida="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 17,="" 1999.="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" for="" st.="" lucie,="" units="" 1="" and="" 2,="" will="" revise="" the="" current="" 72-hour="" action="" completion="" allowed="" outage="" time="" (aot)="" specified="" in="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" 3.8.1.1,="" action="" ``b,''="" to="" allow="" 14="" days="" to="" restore="" an="" inoperable="" emergency="" diesel="" generator="" set="" to="" operable="" status.="" the="" proposed="" aot="" is="" based="" on="" an="" integrated="" review="" and="" assessment="" of="" plant="" operations,="" deterministic="" design="" basis="" factors,="" and="" an="" evaluation="" of="" overall="" plant="" risk="" using="" probabilistic="" safety="" assessment="" techniques.="" basis="" for="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination:="" as="" required="" by="" 10="" cfr="" 50.91(a),="" the="" licensee="" has="" provided="" its="" analysis="" of="" the="" issue="" of="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration,="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" (1)="" operation="" of="" the="" facility="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" for="" st.="" lucie="" unit="" 1="" and="" unit="" 2="" will="" extend="" the="" action="" completion/allowed="" outage="" time="" (aot)="" for="" a="" single="" inoperable="" emergency="" diesel="" generator="" (edg)="" from="" 72="" hours="" to="" 14="" days.="" the="" edgs="" are="" designed="" as="" backup="" ac="" power="" sources="" for="" essential="" safety="" systems="" in="" the="" event="" of="" a="" loss="" of="" offsite="" power.="" as="" such,="" the="" edgs="" are="" not="" accident="" initiators,="" and="" an="" extended="" aot="" to="" restore="" operability="" of="" an="" inoperable="" diesel="" generator="" would="" not="" significantly="" increase="" the="" probability="" of="" occurrence="" of="" accidents="" previously="" analyzed.="" the="" proposed="" technical="" specification="" revisions="" involve="" the="" aot="" for="" a="" single="" inoperable="" edg,="" and="" do="" not="" change="" the="" conditions,="" operating="" configuration,="" or="" minimum="" amount="" of="" operating="" equipment="" assumed="" in="" the="" plant="" safety="" analyses="" for="" accident="" mitigation.="" plant="" defense-in-depth="" capabilities="" will="" be="" maintained="" with="" the="" proposed="" aot,="" and="" the="" design="" basis="" for="" electric="" power="" systems="" will="" continue="" to="" conform="" with="" 10="" cfr="" 50,="" appendix="" a,="" general="" design="" criterion="" 17.="" in="" addition,="" a="" probability="" safety="" assessment="" (psa)="" was="" performed="" to="" quantitatively="" assess="" the="" risk-impact="" of="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" for="" each="" unit.="" the="" impact="" on="" the="" early="" radiological="" release="" probability="" for="" design="" basis="" events="" was="" also="" evaluated="" and="" it="" is="" concluded="" that="" the="" risk="" contribution="" from="" this="" proposed="" aot="" is="" small="" and="" consistent="" with="" regulatory="" risk-assessment="" acceptance="" guidelines.="" therefore,="" operation="" of="" either="" facility="" in="" accordance="" with="" its="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" (2)="" operation="" of="" the="" facility="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" will="" not="" change="" the="" physical="" plant="" or="" the="" modes="" of="" operation="" defined="" in="" either="" facility="" license.="" the="" changes="" do="" not="" involve="" the="" addition="" of="" new="" equipment="" or="" the="" modification="" of="" existing="" equipment,="" nor="" do="" they="" alter="" the="" design="" of="" st.="" lucie="" plant="" systems.="" therefore,="" operation="" of="" either="" facility="" in="" accordance="" with="" its="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" (3)="" operation="" of="" the="" facility="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" are="" designed="" to="" improve="" edg="" reliability="" by="" providing="" flexibility="" in="" the="" scheduling="" and="" performance="" of="" preventive="" and="" corrective="" maintenance="" activities.="" the="" surveillance="" intervals="" or="" the="" operability="" requirements="" are="" not="" changed="" by="" the="" proposal;="" only="" the="" aot="" for="" a="" single="" inoperable="" edg="" will="" be="" extended.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" alter="" the="" basis="" for="" any="" technical="" specification="" that="" is="" related="" to="" the="" establishment="" of,="" or="" the="" maintenance="" of,="" a="" nuclear="" safety="" margin,="" and="" design="" defense-in-depth="" capabilities="" are="" maintained.="" an="" integrated="" assessment="" of="" the="" risk="" impact="" of="" extending="" the="" aot="" for="" a="" single="" inoperable="" edg="" has="" determined="" that="" the="" risk="" contribution="" is="" small="" and="" is="" within="" regulatory="" guidelines="" for="" an="" acceptable="" ts="" change.="" therefore,="" operation="" of="" either="" facility="" in="" accordance="" with="" its="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" standards="" of="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" m.s.="" ross,="" attorney,="" florida="" power="" &="" light,="" p.o.="" box="" 14000,="" juno="" beach,="" florida="" 33408-0420.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" richard="" p.="" correia.="" florida="" power="" and="" light="" company,="" docket="" nos.="" 50-250="" and="" 50-251,="" turkey="" point="" plant,="" units="" 3="" and="" 4,="" dade="" county,="" florida="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 23,="" 1999.="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" license="" amendments="" are="" submitted="" in="" response="" to="" generic="" letter="" (gl)="" 99-02,="" laboratory="" testing="" of="" nuclear-grade="" activated="" charcoal,="" which="" requires="" that="" american="" society="" for="" testing="" and="" materials="" (astm)="" d3803-1989="" be="" used="" for="" testing="" both="" new="" and="" used="" charcoal="" in="" engineered="" safety="" feature="" applications.="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" would="" modify="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" 3/4.6.3,="" emergency="" containment="" filtering="" system,="" ts="" 3/4.6.6,="" post="" accident="" containment="" vent="" system,="" and="" ts="" 3/4.7.5,="" control="" room="" emergency="" ventilation="" system.="" [[page="" 70090]]="" basis="" for="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination:="" as="" required="" by="" 10="" cfr="" 50.91(a),="" the="" licensee="" has="" provided="" its="" analysis="" of="" the="" issue="" of="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration,="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" (1)="" operation="" of="" the="" facility="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" would="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" probability="" of="" occurrence="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" for="" turkey="" point="" is="" not="" altered="" by="" the="" proposed="" ts="" changes="" because="" no="" physical="" modifications="" are="" being="" made="" to="" the="" plant.="" the="" proposed="" change="" requires="" that="" new="" and="" used="" charcoal="" in="" the="" plant="" engineered="" safety="" feature="" (esf)="" ventilation="" systems="" be="" tested="" in="" accordance="" with="" astm="" d3803-1989,="" at="" a="" temperature="" of="" 30="" deg.c="" and="" a="" relative="" humidity="" of="" 95%.="" the="" use="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" test="" standard="" to="" satisfy="" the="" charcoal="" surveillance="" test="" requirement="" does="" not="" change="" the="" radiological="" consequences="" of="" any="" previously="" evaluated="" accident.="" the="" adoption="" of="" the="" astm="" standard="" will,="" however,="" require="" that="" future="" charcoal="" samples="" from="" the="" emergency="" containment="" filters="" be="" tested="" for="" methyl="" iodide="" removal="" rather="" than="" elemental="" iodine="" removal="" as="" permitted="" by="" previous="" test="" protocols.="" the="" revised="" test="" method="" will="" provide="" a="" more="" uniform="" test="" program="" for="" the="" esf="" filters,="" and="" will="" not="" adversely="" affect="" the="" filters="" affinity="" for="" elemental="" iodine="" removal.="" the="" adoption="" of="" the="" astm="" standard="" for="" laboratory="" analysis="" of="" the="" esf="" charcoal="" does="" not="" impact="" the="" design="" bases="" of="" the="" esf="" systems,="" alter="" post-accident="" source="" terms,="" or="" modify="" the="" removal="" efficiencies="" credited="" in="" the="" facility="" dose="" calculations.="" the="" astm="" standard="" is="" very="" stringent="" and="" has="" been="" shown="" to="" provide="" a="" more="" reliable="" measure="" of="" the="" ability="" of="" charcoal="" to="" fulfill="" its="" intended="" design="" function,="" i.e.,="" to="" remove="" radioiodine="" in="" any="" chemical="" form="" from="" the="" attendant="" plant="" gas="" stream,="" than="" previous="" test="" protocols.="" consequently,="" the="" adoption="" of="" the="" astm="" standard="" for="" laboratory="" analysis="" of="" the="" esf="" charcoal="" will="" ensure="" that="" turkey="" point="" is="" operated="" in="" a="" manner="" consistent="" with="" the="" licensing="" basis="" of="" the="" facility="" as="" it="" relates="" to="" the="" protection="" of="" the="" public="" and="" the="" control="" room="" operators="" during="" radiological="" accidents.="" based="" on="" the="" above,="" it="" is="" concluded="" that="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" (2)="" operation="" of="" the="" facility="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" would="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" create="" a="" new="" or="" different="" type="" of="" accident="" for="" turkey="" point="" because="" no="" physical="" plant="" changes="" are="" being="" made,="" and="" no="" compensatory="" measures="" are="" imposed="" that="" would="" create="" a="" new="" failure="" scenario.="" the="" proposed="" change="" only="" imposes="" a="" more="" stringent="" surveillance="" requirement="" for="" both="" new="" and="" used="" charcoal="" in="" the="" plant="" esf="" ventilation="" systems.="" since="" no="" new="" failure="" modes="" are="" associated="" with="" the="" proposed="" changes,="" the="" activity="" does="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" previously="" evaluated.="" (3)="" operation="" of="" the="" facility="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" would="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" proposed="" license="" amendment="" adopts="" a="" more="" stringent="" standard="" for="" performing="" laboratory="" surveillance="" tests="" on="" both="" new="" and="" used="" charcoal="" in="" the="" esf="" ventilation="" systems.="" given="" the="" increased="" accuracy="" of="" the="" proposed="" test="" standard,="" the="" amendment="" also="" supports="" the="" adoption="" of="" revised="" acceptance="" criteria="" having="" a="" lower="" safety="" factor="" to="" the="" plant="" safety="" analysis="" limits.="" the="" composite="" change="" does="" not="" impact="" the="" design="" bases="" of="" the="" esf="" systems,="" alter="" post-="" accident="" source="" terms,="" or="" modify="" the="" removal="" efficiencies="" credited="" in="" the="" facility="" dose="" calculations="" the="" margin="" of="" safety="" associated="" with="" operation="" of="" the="" esf="" ventilation="" systems="" is="" established="" by="" the="" facility="" dose="" calculations="" and="" the="" acceptance="" criteria="" for="" system="" performance="" defined="" in="" 10="" cfr="" 100="" and="" criterion="" 19="" of="" appendix="" a="" to="" 10="" cfr="" 50.="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" will="" not="" change="" this="" acceptance="" criteria="" nor="" the="" calculated="" dose="" limits="" used="" to="" establish="" the="" current="" plant-licensing="" basis.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" standards="" of="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" m.s.="" ross,="" attorney,="" florida="" power="" &="" light,="" p.o.="" box="" 14000,="" juno="" beach,="" florida="" 33408-0420.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" richard="" p.="" corriea.="" florida="" power="" corporation,="" et="" al.,="" docket="" no.="" 50-302,="" crystal="" river="" unit="" no.="" 3="" nuclear="" generating="" plant,="" citrus="" county,="" florida="" date="" of="" application="" for="" amendment:="" october="" 12,="" 1999.="" brief="" description="" of="" amendment:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" revise="" the="" appendix="" b="" environmental="" protection="" plan="" of="" the="" crystal="" river="" unit="" 3="" (cr-3)="" operating="" license.="" the="" changes="" incorporate="" requirements="" from="" a="" biological="" opinion="" (bo)="" issued="" by="" the="" national="" marine="" fisheries="" service="" (nmfs).="" the="" bo="" reviews="" the="" effects="" of="" the="" cooling="" water="" intake="" system="" on="" species="" of="" sea="" turtles="" protected="" by="" the="" endangered="" species="" act="" (esa).="" additionally,="" other="" administrative="" changes="" are="" proposed="" to="" appendix="" b.="" basis="" for="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination:="" as="" required="" by="" 10="" cfr="" 50.91(a),="" the="" licensee="" has="" provided="" its="" analysis="" of="" the="" issue="" of="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration,="" which="" is="" presented="" below.="" 1.="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated?="" the="" proposed="" changes="" to="" the="" cr-3="" epp="" are="" administrative="" in="" nature="" and="" reflect="" the="" information="" provided="" in="" the="" nmfs="" bo.="" these="" changes="" do="" not="" affect="" the="" initial="" conditions,="" assumptions,="" or="" conclusions="" of="" the="" cr-3="" accident="" analyses.="" in="" addition,="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" affect="" the="" operation="" or="" performance="" of="" any="" equipment="" assumed="" in="" the="" accident="" analyses.="" therefore,="" the="" proposed="" changes="" would="" not="" significantly="" increase="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" 2.="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" previously="" evaluated="" accidents?="" the="" proposed="" changes="" are="" administrative="" in="" nature="" and="" reflect="" information="" provided="" by="" the="" nmfs="" bo="" regarding="" the="" incidental="" taking="" of="" species="" of="" sea="" turtles="" protected="" by="" the="" esa.="" these="" changes="" do="" not="" impact="" or="" alter="" the="" configuration="" or="" operation="" of="" the="" facilities="" and="" do="" not="" create="" any="" new="" modes="" of="" operation.="" therefore,="" the="" proposed="" changes="" would="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident.="" 3.="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety?="" as="" indicated="" above,="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" change="" the="" configuration="" or="" operation="" of="" the="" plant="" and="" do="" not="" affect="" the="" cr-3="" accident="" analyses.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" are="" administrative="" in="" nature="" and="" do="" not="" affect="" any="" margin="" of="" safety="" for="" cr-3.="" therefore,="" the="" proposed="" changes="" would="" not="" result="" in="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" standards="" of="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" r.="" alexander="" glenn,="" general="" counsel="" (mac-="" bt15a),="" florida="" power="" corporation,="" p.="" o.="" box="" 14042,="" st.="" petersburg,="" florida="" 33733-4042.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" richard="" correia.="" gpu="" nuclear,="" inc.,="" et="" al.,="" docket="" no.="" 50-289,="" three="" mile="" island="" nuclear="" station,="" unit="" no.="" 1,="" dauphin="" county,="" pennsylvania="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" october="" 29,="" 1999.="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" license="" amendment="" would="" modify="" the="" technical="" specifications="" (tss)="" to:="" (1)="" add="" operating="" limits="" for="" make-up="" tank="" (mut)="" level="" and="" pressure="" in="" a="" new="" figure="" 3.3.1;="" (2)="" add="" surveillance="" requirements="" for="" the="" mut="" pressure="" instrument="" channel;="" (3)="" change="" the="" frequency="" of="" calibration="" for="" the="" mut="" level="" instrument="" from="" f="" (every="" 24="" months)="" to="" r="" (refueling="" interval);="" (4)="" change="" the="" frequency="" of="" calibration="" for="" [[page="" 70091]]="" the="" high="" pressure="" injection="" (hpi)="" and="" low="" pressure="" injection="" (lpi)="" flow="" instruments;="" and="" (5)="" make="" minor="" editorial="" changes.="" basis="" for="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination:="" as="" required="" by="" 10="" cfr="" 50.91(a),="" the="" licensee="" has="" provided="" its="" analysis="" of="" the="" issue="" of="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration,="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" 1.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" represent="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" changes="" included="" in="" this="" lca="" [license="" change="" application]="" impose="" new="" requirements="" for="" mu/hpi="" system="" operation="" and="" testing="" and="" extension="" of="" calibration="" frequencies="" for="" the="" mut="" level,="" hpi="" flow="" and="" lpi="" flow="" instruments.="" these="" changes="" could="" not="" result="" in="" initiation="" of="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" therefore,="" the="" probability="" of="" an="" accident="" could="" not="" be="" affected="" by="" changes="" to="" the="" mu/hpi="" system.="" as="" described="" in="" the="" list="" of="" benefits="" for="" operation="" with="" the="" mu/="" hpi="" cross-connect="" valves="" open,="" listed="" in="" section="" iii.b="" above="" [section="" iii.b="" of="" the="" october="" 29,="" 1999="" application],="" the="" purpose="" of="" changing="" the="" operation="" of="" the="" mu/hpi="" system="" was="" to="" preclude="" the="" possibility="" of="" hpi="" pump="" damage.="" the="" addition="" of="" surveillance="" requirements="" for="" the="" mut="" pressure="" instrument="" and="" the="" addition="" of="" lco="" [limiting="" conditions="" for="" operation]="" limits="" on="" mut="" level="" and="" pressure="" along="" with="" an="" appropriate="" action="" statement="" and="" aot="" [allowed="" outage="" time]="" will="" ensure="" that="" gas="" entrainment="" of="" the="" mut="" does="" not="" occur.="" the="" proposed="" change="" in="" instrument="" calibration="" frequencies="" will="" continue="" to="" maintain="" the="" required="" accuracy="" of="" the="" mut="" level,="" hpi="" flow,="" and="" lpi="" flow="" instruments.="" minor="" editorial="" changes="" are="" included="" in="" this="" request="" to="" improve="" clarity="" and="" readability="" of="" the="" t.s.="" and="" could="" not="" adversely="" affect="" plant="" operation.="" therefore,="" the="" proposed="" changes="" will="" not="" adversely="" impact="" the="" reliability="" of="" the="" mu/hpi="" system="" and="" could="" not="" represent="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" 2.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" this="" lca="" does="" not="" involve="" the="" addition="" of="" any="" new="" hardware.="" along="" with="" minor="" editorial="" changes,="" the="" requested="" changes="" involve="" mu/hpi="" system="" operation="" and="" testing,="" which="" could="" only="" affect="" rcs="" [reactor="" coolant="" system]="" coolant="" inventory="" changes="" during="" operation="" and="" the="" ability="" to="" provide="" protection="" in="" the="" event="" of="" a="" loss="" of="" coolant="" accident="" (loca).="" the="" full="" spectrum="" of="" locas="" has="" been="" evaluated="" in="" the="" fsar="" [final="" safety="" analysis="" report].="" therefore,="" no="" new="" accident="" scenarios="" have="" been="" created.="" the="" additional="" controls="" on="" mut="" level="" and="" pressure="" provided="" by="" this="" lca="" will="" ensure="" that="" a="" malfunction="" of="" a="" different="" type,="" gas="" entrainment="" of="" the="" mu/hpi="" pumps,="" will="" not="" occur.="" these="" limits="" on="" mut="" level="" and="" pressure="" ensure="" that="" the="" initial="" conditions="" assumed="" for="" eccs="" [emergency="" core="" cooling="" system]="" operation="" are="" maintained.="" the="" t.s.="" limits="" maintain="" the="" accident="" analysis="" initial="" conditions="" such="" that="" no="" operator="" action="" is="" required="" to="" meet="" npsh="" [net="" positive="" suction="" head]="" or="" to="" avoid="" gas="" entrainment="" during="" eccs="" operation="" with="" the="" postulated="" single="" failure="" as="" required="" by="" the="" tmi-1="" licensing="" basis="" (reference="" 14)="" [of="" the="" october="" 29,="" 1999,="" application].="" extension="" of="" the="" calibration="" frequencies="" for="" the="" hpi="" level,="" hpi="" flow,="" and="" lpi="" flow="" will="" continue="" to="" maintain="" the="" accuracy="" of="" these="" instruments="" and="" could="" not="" create="" the="" potential="" for="" any="" new="" accident="" that="" has="" not="" been="" evaluated.="" minor="" editorial="" changes="" are="" included="" in="" this="" request="" to="" improve="" the="" clarity="" and="" readability="" of="" the="" t.s.="" and="" could="" not="" adversely="" affect="" plant="" operation.="" therefore,="" these="" changes="" do="" not="" create="" the="" potential="" for="" any="" accident="" different="" from="" those="" that="" have="" been="" evaluated.="" 3.="" these="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" this="" lca="" includes="" changes="" to="" the="" mu/hpi="" system="" operation="" and="" testing="" and="" an="" extension="" of="" the="" calibration="" frequency="" for="" certain="" instrument[s].="" the="" requested="" changes="" will="" serve="" to="" maintain="" the="" proper="" system="" initial="" conditions="" to="" ensure="" the="" ability="" of="" the="" mu/hpi="" system="" to="" provide="" protection="" in="" the="" event="" of="" a="" loss="" of="" coolant="" accident="" (loca)="" and="" maintain="" the="" required="" instrument="" accuracy="" for="" the="" instruments="" where="" changes="" to="" a="" refueling="" interval="" frequency="" are="" being="" requested.="" nrc="" guidance="" for="" addressing="" the="" effect="" on="" increased="" surveillance="" intervals="" on="" instrument="" drift="" and="" safety="" analysis="" assumptions="" presented="" in="" gl="" [generic="" letter]="" 91-04="" has="" been="" addressed="" in="" enclosure="" 1a="" above="" [of="" the="" october="" 29,="" 1999,="" application].="" minor="" editorial="" changes="" are="" included="" in="" this="" request="" to="" improve="" the="" clarity="" and="" readability="" of="" the="" t.s.="" and="" could="" not="" adversely="" affect="" plant="" operation.="" these="" changes,="" which="" are="" consistent="" with="" the="" tmi-1="" licensing="" and="" design="" basis="" requirements,="" do="" not="" result="" in="" a="" degradation="" of="" safety="" related="" equipment,="" and="" therefore,="" do="" not="" involve="" a="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" standards="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" ernest="" l.="" blake,="" jr.,="" esquire,="" shaw,="" pittman,="" potts="" &="" trowbridge,="" 2300="" n="" street,="" nw.,="" washington,="" dc="" 20037.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" sheri="" r.="" peterson.="" southern="" nuclear="" operating="" company,="" inc.,="" georgia="" power="" company,="" oglethorpe="" power="" corporation,="" municipal="" electric="" authority="" of="" georgia,="" city="" of="" dalton,="" georgia,="" docket="" nos.="" 50-321="" and="" 50-366,="" edwin="" i.="" hatch="" nuclear="" plant,="" units="" 1="" and="" 2,="" appling="" county,="" georgia="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 17,="" 1999.="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" would="" revise="" the="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" values="" for="" methyl="" iodide="" penetration="" for="" the="" main="" control="" room="" environmental="" control="" system="" and="" the="" standby="" gas="" treatment="" system.="" also,="" editorial="" revisions="" are="" being="" made="" to="" portions="" of="" ts="" section="" 5.0="" to="" reference="" the="" correct="" sections="" of="" regulatory="" guide="" 1.52.="" basis="" for="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination:="" as="" required="" by="" 10="" cfr="" 50.91(a),="" the="" licensee="" has="" provided="" its="" analysis="" of="" the="" issue="" of="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration,="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" 1.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" the="" consequences="" of="" a="" previously="" evaluated="" accident.="" this="" proposed="" revision="" makes="" changes="" to="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" section="" 5.5.7,="" ``ventilation="" filter="" testing="" program''="" (vftp).="" the="" references="" to="" sections="" in="" the="" regulatory="" guide="" 1.52,="" revision="" 2="" for="" vftp="" are="" being="" corrected.="" additionally,="" the="" proposed="" revision="" also="" changes="" the="" allowable="" methyl="" iodide="" penetration="" percent="" for="" the="" carbon="" in="" the="" standby="" gas="" treatment="" (sgt)="" and="" the="" main="" control="" room="" environmental="" control="" (mcrec)="" systems="" when="" tested="" in="" accordance="" with="" astm="" ds3803-1989.="" this="" is="" based="" on="" the="" values="" that="" would="" be="" derived="" using="" a="" factor="" of="" safety="" of="" 2="" between="" the="" credited="" and="" tested="" carbon="" efficiencies.="" this="" safety="" factor="" is="" contained="" in="" the="" generic="" letter="" 99-02.="" the="" generic="" letter="" allows="" the="" reduction="" of="" the="" factor="" of="" safety="" between="" the="" credited="" and="" tested="" carbon="" efficiencies="" from="" 5="" (for="" systems="" with="" heaters)="" and="" 7="" (for="" systems="" without="" heaters)="" to="" 2="" (for="" systems="" with="" or="" without="" heaters)="" when="" tested="" per="" astm="" d-3803-="" 1989.="" since="" the="" factor="" of="" safety="" of="" 2="" is="" maintained,="" this="" change="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" the="" consequences="" of="" a="" previously="" evaluated="" event.="" the="" changes="" in="" the="" section="" references="" to="" regulatory="" guide="" 1.52="" revision="" 2="" for="" the="" ventilation="" filter="" testing="" program="" (vftp)="" are="" considered="" to="" be="" editorial="" corrections.="" 2.="" the="" change="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" of="" or="" the="" consequences="" of="" an="" event="" not="" previously="" analyzed.="" this="" proposed="" revision="" makes="" changes="" to="" ts="" section="" 5.5.7,="" ``ventilation="" filter="" testing="" program''="" (vftp).="" the="" section="" references="" to="" regulatory="" guide="" 1.52="" revision="" 2="" for="" the="" ventilation="" filter="" testing="" program="" (vftp)="" are="" being="" corrected.="" the="" change="" in="" the="" allowable="" methyl="" iodide="" penetration="" percent="" is="" based="" [[page="" 70092]]="" on="" the="" values="" that="" would="" be="" derived="" using="" the="" safety="" factor="" of="" 2="" contained="" in="" generic="" letter="" 99-02.="" the="" generic="" letter="" will="" reduce="" the="" factor="" of="" safety="" between="" the="" credited="" and="" tested="" carbon="" efficiencies="" from="" 5="" (for="" systems="" with="" heaters)="" and="" 7="" (for="" systems="" without="" heaters)="" to="" 2="" if="" tested="" per="" astm="" d-3803-1989.="" since="" the="" credited="" carbon="" efficiencies="" in="" the="" dose="" calculations="" are="" not="" being="" compromised,="" this="" change="" will="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" of,="" or="" the="" consequences="" of="" an="" event="" not="" previously="" analyzed.="" the="" changes="" in="" the="" section="" references="" to="" reg.="" guide="" 1.52="" are="" editorial="" and="" thus="" do="" not="" significantly="" increase="" the="" probability="" of,="" or="" the="" consequences="" of="" a="" previously="" unanalyzed="" event.="" 3.="" the="" change="" does="" not="" significantly="" reduce="" the="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" change="" in="" the="" allowable="" methyl="" iodide="" penetration="" percent="" implements="" the="" generic="" letter's="" carbon="" efficiency="" safety="" factor="" of="" 2="" between="" the="" credited="" and="" the="" tested="" carbon="" efficiencies.="" per="" the="" generic="" letter,="" it="" is="" acceptable="" to="" use="" this="" new="" safety="" factor="" since="" the="" new="" standard="" is="" more="" accurate="" and="" demanding="" than="" previous="" ones.="" therefore,="" the="" proposed="" revision="" will="" not="" significantly="" reduce="" the="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" changes="" in="" the="" section="" references="" for="" regulatory="" guide="" 1.52="" revision="" 2="" are="" considered="" to="" be="" editorial="" corrections.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" standards="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" ernest="" l.="" blake,="" jr.,="" esquire,="" shaw,="" pittman,="" potts="" and="" trowbridge,="" 2300="" n="" street,="" nw.,="" washington,="" dc="" 20037.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" richard="" l.="" emch,="" jr.="" tennessee="" valley="" authority,="" docket="" no.="" 50-390="" watts="" bar="" nuclear="" plant,="" unit="" 1,="" rhea="" county,="" tennessee="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 15,="" 1999="" (ts="" 99-016).="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" change="" the="" technical="" specifications="" (ts)="" for="" watts="" bar="" unit="" 1="" to:="" (1)="" revise="" the="" watts="" bar="" ts="" and="" associated="" ts="" bases="" for="" ts="" 3.6.11.5="" to="" change="" the="" methodology="" and="" frequency="" for="" sampling="" the="" ice="" condenser="" ice="" bed="" (stored="" ice)="" and="" (2)="" add="" a="" new="" ts="" 3.6.11.7="" and="" associated="" ts="" bases="" to="" address="" sampling="" requirements="" for="" all="" ice="" additions="" to="" the="" ice="" bed.="" basis="" for="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination:="" as="" required="" by="" 10="" cfr="" 50.91(a),="" the="" licensee="" has="" provided="" its="" analysis="" of="" the="" issue="" of="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration,="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" a.="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" only="" analyzed="" accidents="" of="" possible="" consideration="" in="" regards="" to="" changes="" potentially="" affecting="" the="" ice="" condenser="" are="" a="" loss="" of="" coolant="" accident="" (loca)="" and="" a="" main="" steam="" line="" break="" (mslb)="" inside="" containment.="" however,="" the="" ice="" condenser="" is="" not="" postulated="" as="" being="" the="" initiator="" of="" any="" loca="" or="" mslb.="" this="" is="" because="" it="" is="" designed="" to="" remain="" functional="" following="" a="" design="" basis="" earthquake,="" and="" the="" ice="" condenser="" does="" not="" interconnect="" or="" interact="" with="" any="" systems="" that="" interconnect="" or="" interact="" with="" the="" reactor="" coolant="" or="" main="" steam="" systems.="" since="" the="" proposed="" changes="" to="" the="" ts="" and="" ts="" bases="" are="" solely="" to="" revise="" and="" provide="" clarification="" of="" the="" ice="" sampling="" and="" chemical="" analysis="" requirements,="" and="" are="" not="" the="" result="" of="" or="" require="" any="" physical="" change="" to="" the="" ice="" condenser,="" then="" there="" can="" be="" no="" change="" in="" the="" probability="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" in="" the="" safety="" analysis="" report="" (sar).="" in="" order="" for="" the="" consequences="" of="" any="" previously="" evaluated="" event="" to="" be="" changed,="" there="" would="" have="" to="" be="" a="" change="" in="" the="" ice="" condenser's="" physical="" operation="" during="" a="" loca="" or="" mslb,="" or="" in="" the="" chemical="" composition="" of="" the="" stored="" ice.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" alter="" either="" from="" existing="" requirements,="" except="" to="" add="" an="" upper="" limit="" on="" boron="" concentration,="" which="" is="" the="" bounding="" value="" for="" the="" hot="" leg="" switchover="" timing="" calculation.="" though="" the="" frequency="" of="" the="" existing="" surveillance="" requirement="" for="" sampling="" the="" stored="" ice="" is="" changed="" from="" once="" every="" 18="" months="" to="" once="" every="" 54="" months,="" the="" sampling="" requirements="" are="" strengthened="" overall="" with="" (1)="" the="" requirement="" to="" obtain="" one="" randomly="" selected="" sample="" from="" each="" ice="" condenser="" bay="" (24="" total="" samples)="" rather="" than="" nine="" ``representative''="" samples,="" and="" (2)="" the="" addition="" of="" a="" new="" surveillance="" requirement="" to="" verify="" each="" addition="" of="" ice="" meets="" the="" existing="" requirements="" for="" boron="" concentration="" and="" ph="" value.="" the="" only="" other="" change="" is="" to="" clarify="" that="" each="" sample="" of="" stored="" ice="" is="" individually="" analyzed="" for="" boron="" concentration="" and="" ph,="" but="" that="" the="" acceptance="" criteria="" for="" each="" parameter="" is="" based="" on="" the="" average="" values="" obtained="" for="" the="" 24="" samples.="" this="" is="" consistent="" with="" the="" bases="" for="" the="" boron="" concentration="" of="" the="" ice,="" which="" is="" to="" ensure="" the="" accident="" analysis="" assumptions="" for="" containment="" sump="" ph="" and="" boron="" concentration="" are="" not="" altered="" following="" complete="" melting="" of="" the="" ice="" condenser.="" historically,="" chemical="" analysis="" of="" the="" stored="" ice="" has="" had="" a="" very="" limited="" number="" of="" instances="" where="" an="" individual="" sample="" did="" not="" meet="" the="" boron="" or="" ph="" requirements,="" with="" all="" subsequent="" evaluations="" (follow="" up="" sampling)="" showing="" the="" ice="" condenser="" as="" a="" whole="" was="" well="" within="" these="" requirements.="" requiring="" chemical="" analysis="" of="" each="" sample="" is="" provided="" to="" preclude="" the="" practice="" of="" melting="" all="" samples="" together="" before="" performing="" the="" analysis,="" and="" to="" ensure="" the="" licensee="" is="" alerted="" to="" any="" localized="" anomalies="" for="" investigation="" and="" resolution="" without="" the="" burden="" of="" entering="" a="" 24="" hour="" action="" condition,="" provided="" the="" averaged="" results="" are="" acceptable.="" thus,="" based="" on="" the="" above,="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" b.="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" because="" the="" ts="" and="" ts="" bases="" changes="" do="" not="" involve="" any="" physical="" changes="" to="" the="" ice="" condenser,="" any="" physical="" or="" chemical="" changes="" to="" the="" ice="" contained="" therein,="" or="" make="" any="" changes="" in="" the="" operational="" or="" maintenance="" aspects="" of="" the="" ice="" condenser="" as="" required="" by="" the="" tech="" specs,="" there="" can="" be="" no="" new="" accidents="" created="" from="" those="" already="" identified="" and="" evaluated.="" c.="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" ice="" condenser="" technical="" specifications="" ensure="" that="" during="" a="" loca="" or="" slb="" the="" ice="" condenser="" will="" initially="" pass="" sufficient="" air="" and="" steam="" mass="" to="" preclude="" over="" pressurizing="" lower="" containment,="" that="" it="" will="" absorb="" sufficient="" heat="" energy="" initially="" and="" over="" a="" prescribed="" time="" period="" to="" assist="" in="" precluding="" containment="" vessel="" failure,="" and="" that="" it="" will="" not="" alter="" the="" bulk="" containment="" sump="" ph="" and="" boron="" concentration="" assumed="" in="" the="" accident="" analysis.="" since="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" physically="" alter="" the="" ice="" condenser,="" but="" rather="" only="" serve="" to="" strengthen="" and="" clarify="" ice="" sampling="" and="" analysis="" requirements,="" the="" only="" area="" of="" potential="" concern="" is="" the="" effect="" these="" changes="" could="" have="" on="" bulk="" containment="" sump="" ph="" and="" boron="" concentration="" following="" ice="" melt.="" however,="" this="" is="" not="" affected="" because="" there="" is="" no="" change="" in="" the="" existing="" requirements="" for="" ph="" and="" boron="" concentration,="" except="" to="" add="" an="" upper="" limit="" on="" boron="" concentration.="" this="" upper="" limit="" is="" the="" bounding="" value="" for="" the="" hot="" leg="" switchover="" timing="" calculation.="" averaging="" the="" ph="" and="" boron="" values="" obtained="" from="" analysis="" of="" the="" individual="" samples="" taken="" is="" not="" a="" new="" practice,="" just="" one="" that="" was="" not="" consistently="" used="" by="" all="" ice="" condenser="" plants.="" using="" the="" averaged="" values="" provides="" an="" equivalent="" bulk="" value="" for="" the="" ice="" condenser,="" which="" is="" consistent="" with="" the="" accident="" analysis="" for="" the="" bulk="" ph="" and="" boron="" concentration="" of="" the="" containment="" sump="" following="" ice="" melt.="" changing="" the="" performance="" frequency="" for="" sampling="" the="" stored="" ice="" does="" not="" reduce="" any="" margin="" of="" safety="" because="" (1)="" the="" newly="" proposed="" surveillance="" (sr="" 3.6.15.7)="" ensures="" ice="" additions="" meet="" the="" existing="" boron="" concentration="" and="" ph="" requirements,="" (2)="" there="" are="" no="" normal="" operating="" mechanisms,="" including="" sublimation,="" that="" reduce="" the="" ice="" condenser="" bulk="" ph="" and="" boron="" concentration,="" and="" (3)="" the="" number="" of="" required="" samples="" has="" been="" increased="" from="" nine="" to="" 24="" (one="" randomly="" selected="" ice="" basket="" per="" bay),="" which="" is="" approximately="" the="" same="" number="" of="" samples="" that="" would="" have="" been="" taken="" in="" the="" same="" time="" period="" under="" the="" existing="" requirements.="" thus,="" it="" can="" be="" concluded="" that="" the="" proposed="" ts="" and="" ts="" bases="" changes="" do="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" the="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" [[page="" 70093]]="" standards="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" general="" counsel,="" tennessee="" valley="" authority,="" 400="" west="" summit="" hill="" drive,="" et="" 10h,="" knoxville,="" tennessee="" 37902.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" richard="" correia.="" tennessee="" valley="" authority,="" docket="" no.="" 50-390="" watts="" bar="" nuclear="" plant,="" unit="" 1,="" rhea="" county,="" tennessee="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 20,="" 1998="" and="" july="" 19,="" 1999="" (ts99-014).="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" revise="" the="" watts="" bar="" nuclear="" plant="" unit="" 1="" technical="" specifications="" (ts)="" and="" associated="" ts="" bases="" to="" alter="" the="" acceptance="" criteria="" in="" surveillance="" requirement="" (sr)="" 3.6.11.4="" and="" to="" revise="" the="" bases="" for="" ts="" 3.6.12.="" the="" changes="" would="" replace="" the="" current="" visual="" inspection="" requirement="" that="" uses="" a="" 0.38="" inch="" ice/frost="" buildup="" criterion="" with="" a="" visual="" surveillance="" program="" that="" provides="" an="" increased="" confidence="" level="" that="" flow="" blockage="" in="" ice="" condenser="" baskets="" does="" not="" exceed="" the="" 15="" percent="" assumed="" in="" the="" accident="" analyses.="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" dated="" july="" 19,="" 1999="" is="" considered="" to="" supercede="" and="" replace="" entirely="" a="" proposed="" amendment="" dated="" november="" 20,="" 1998="" on="" this="" same="" subject.="" basis="" for="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination:="" as="" required="" by="" 10="" cfr="" 50.91(a),="" the="" licensee="" has="" provided="" its="" analysis="" of="" the="" issue="" of="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration,="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" a.="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" neither="" the="" ts="" amendment="" nor="" the="" ts="" bases="" changes="" can="" increase="" the="" probability="" of="" occurrence="" of="" any="" analyzed="" accident="" because="" they="" are="" not="" the="" result="" or="" cause="" of="" any="" physical="" modification="" to="" ice="" condenser="" structures,="" and="" for="" the="" current="" design="" of="" the="" ice="" condenser,="" there="" is="" no="" correlation="" between="" any="" credible="" failure="" of="" it="" and="" the="" initiation="" of="" any="" previously="" analyzed="" event.="" regarding="" the="" consequences="" of="" analyzed="" accidents,="" the="" ice="" condenser="" is="" an="" engineered="" safety="" feature="" designed,="" in="" part,="" to="" limit="" the="" containment="" subcompartment="" and="" steel="" containment="" vessel="" pressures="" immediately="" following="" the="" initiation="" of="" a="" loca="" [loss-of-="" coolant="" accident]="" or="" helb="" [high="" energy="" line="" break].="" conservative="" subcompartment="" pressure="" analysis="" shows="" this="" criteria="" will="" be="" met="" if="" the="" reduction="" in="" the="" flow="" area="" per="" bay="" provided="" for="" ice="" condenser="" air/steam="" flow="" channels="" is="" less="" than="" or="" equal="" to="" 15="" percent,="" or="" if="" the="" total="" flow="" area="" blocked="" within="" each="" lumped="" analysis="" section="" is="" less="" than="" or="" equal="" to="" the="" 15="" percent="" assumed="" in="" the="" safety="" analysis.="" the="" present="" 0.38="" inch="" frost/ice="" buildup="" surveillance="" criteria="" only="" addresses="" the="" acceptability="" of="" any="" given="" flow="" channel,="" and="" has="" no="" direct="" correlation="" between="" flow="" channels="" exceeding="" this="" criteria="" and="" percent="" of="" total="" flow="" channel="" blockage.="" in="" fact,="" it="" was="" never="" the="" intent="" of="" the="" current="" sr="" to="" make="" such="" a="" correlation.="" if="" problems="" were="" encountered="" in="" meeting="" the="" 0.38="" inch="" criteria,="" it="" was="" expected="" that="" additional="" inspection="" and="" analysis,="" such="" as="" provided="" in="" the="" proposed="" amendment,="" would="" be="" performed="" to="" make="" such="" a="" determination.="" verifying="" an="" ice="" bed="" is="" left="" with="" less="" than="" or="" equal="" to="" 15="" percent="" flow="" channel="" blockage="" at="" the="" conclusion="" of="" a="" refueling="" outage="" assures="" the="" ice="" bed="" will="" remain="" in="" an="" acceptable="" condition="" for="" the="" duration="" of="" the="" operating="" cycle.="" during="" the="" operating="" cycle,="" a="" certain="" amount="" of="" ice="" sublimates="" and="" reforms="" as="" frost="" on="" the="" colder="" surfaces="" in="" the="" ice="" condenser.="" however,="" frost="" does="" not="" degrade="" flow="" channel="" area.="" the="" surveillance="" will="" effectively="" demonstrate="" operability="" for="" an="" allowed="" 18="" month="" surveillance="" period.="" therefore,="" limiting="" ice="" bed="" flow="" channel="" blockage="" to="" less="" than="" or="" equal="" to="" 15="" percent="" ensures="" operation="" is="" consistent="" with="" the="" assumptions="" of="" the="" design="" basis="" accident="" (dba)="" analyses.="" thus,="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" for="" flow="" blockage="" determination="" provides="" the="" necessary="" assurance="" that="" flow="" channel="" requirements="" are="" met="" without="" additional="" evaluations,="" and="" thus="" will="" not="" increase="" the="" consequences="" of="" a="" loca="" or="" helb.="" in="" regard="" to="" the="" ts="" 3.6.12="" bases="" change,="" clarifying="" that="" condition="" b="" does="" not="" apply="" when="" personnel="" are="" standing="" on="" or="" opening="" doors="" for="" a="" short="" duration="" to="" perform="" surveillances="" or="" minor="" maintenance="" activities,="" such="" as="" ice="" removal,="" does="" not="" increase="" analyzed="" accident="" consequences.="" these="" are="" not="" new="" or="" additional="" actions="" to="" those="" performed="" previously,="" the="" probability="" of="" an="" accident="" versus="" the="" time="" to="" perform="" these="" actions="" is="" small,="" the="" number="" of="" personnel="" involved="" is="" small,="" and="" their="" duration="" is="" generally="" much="" less="" than="" the="" four="" hour="" frequency="" of="" required="" action="" b.1="" (monitor="" maximum="" ice="" condenser="" temperature).="" therefore,="" these="" activities="" do="" not="" adversely="" affect="" ice="" bed="" sublimation,="" melting,="" or="" ice="" condenser="" flow="" paths.="" however,="" if="" during="" these="" activities="" any="" door="" is="" determined="" to="" be="" restrained,="" not="" fully="" closed="" from="" a="" previous="" activity,="" or="" otherwise="" not="" operable,="" then="" separate="" entry="" into="" condition="" b="" is="" required="" for="" each="" door="" so="" identified.="" b.="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" does="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" for="" such="" a="" possibility="" to="" exist,="" there="" would="" have="" to="" be="" either="" a="" physical="" change="" to="" the="" ice="" condenser,="" or="" some="" change="" in="" how="" it="" is="" operated="" or="" physically="" maintained.="" none="" of="" the="" above="" is="" true="" for="" the="" proposed="" ts="" amendment="" and="" ts="" bases="" change.="" there="" is="" no="" change="" to="" the="" existing="" design="" requirements="" or="" inputs/results="" of="" any="" accident="" analysis="" calculations.="" c.="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" design="" basis="" accident="" analyses="" have="" shown="" that="" with="" 85="" percent="" of="" the="" total="" flow="" area="" available="" (uniformly="" distributed),="" the="" ice="" condenser="" will="" perform="" its="" intended="" function.="" thus,="" the="" safety="" limit="" for="" ice="" condenser="" operability="" is="" a="" maximum="" 15="" percent="" blockage="" of="" flow="" channels.="" sr="" 3.6.11.4="" currently="" uses="" a="" specific="" value="" of="" 0.38="" inch="" buildup="" to="" determine="" if="" unacceptable="" frost/ice="" blockage="" exists="" in="" the="" ice="" condenser.="" however,="" this="" specific="" value="" does="" not="" have="" a="" direct="" correlation="" to="" the="" safety="" limit="" for="" blockage="" of="" ice="" condenser="" flow="" area.="" the="" proposed="" ts="" amendment="" requires="" more="" extensive="" visual="" inspection="" (33="" percent="" of="" the="" flow="" area/bay)="" than="" is="" currently="" described="" (2="" flow="" channels/bay)="" in="" the="" ts="" bases="" for="" sr="" 3.6.11.4,="" thus="" providing="" greater="" reliability="" and="" a="" direct="" relationship="" to="" the="" analytical="" safety="" limits.="" changing="" the="" ts="" to="" implement="" a="" surveillance="" program="" that="" is="" more="" reliable="" and="" uses="" acceptance="" criteria="" of="" less="" than="" or="" equal="" to="" 15="" percent="" flow="" blockage,="" as="" allowed="" by="" the="" tmd="" [transient="" mass="" distribution]="" analysis,="" will="" not="" reduce="" the="" margin="" of="" safety="" of="" any="" ts.="" additionally,="" verifying="" an="" ice="" bed="" is="" left="" with="" less="" than="" or="" equal="" to="" 15="" percent="" flow="" channel="" blockage="" at="" the="" conclusion="" of="" a="" refueling="" outage="" assures="" the="" ice="" bed="" will="" remain="" in="" an="" acceptable="" condition="" for="" the="" duration="" of="" the="" operating="" cycle.="" during="" the="" operating="" cycle,="" a="" certain="" amount="" of="" ice="" sublimates="" and="" reforms="" as="" frost="" on="" the="" colder="" surfaces="" in="" the="" ice="" condenser.="" however,="" frost="" has="" been="" determined="" to="" not="" degrade="" flow="" channel="" flow="" area.="" thus,="" design="" limits="" for="" the="" continued="" safe="" function="" of="" containment="" subcompartment="" walls="" and="" the="" steel="" containment="" vessel="" are="" not="" exceeded="" due="" to="" this="" change.="" the="" change="" made="" to="" ts="" 3.6.12="" bases="" does="" not="" affect="" the="" margin="" of="" safety="" as="" defined="" in="" any="" ts="" as="" it="" does="" not="" involve="" design="" specifications="" or="" acceptance="" criteria.="" this="" change="" only="" adds="" a="" clarifying="" note="" that="" entry="" into="" condition="" b="" is="" not="" required="" solely="" because="" of="" actions="" (standing="" on="" and="" opening="" intermediate/upper="" deck="" doors)="" necessary="" for="" the="" performance="" of="" required="" ice="" condenser="" surveillances,="" maintenance,="" or="" routine="" activities.="" this="" does="" not="" preclude="" entry="" into="" condition="" b="" during="" performance="" of="" these="" activities="" should="" an="" intermediate="" deck="" door="" or="" upper="" deck="" door="" otherwise="" be="" determined="" inoperable.="" the="" nrc="" staff="" has="" reviewed="" the="" licensee's="" analysis="" and,="" based="" on="" this="" review,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" three="" standards="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50.92(c)="" are="" satisfied.="" therefore,="" the="" nrc="" staff="" proposes="" to="" determine="" that="" the="" amendment="" request="" involves="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" general="" counsel,="" tennessee="" valley="" authority,="" 400="" west="" summit="" hill="" drive,="" et="" 10h,="" knoxville,="" tennessee="" 37902.="" nrc="" section="" chief:="" richard="" p.="" correia.="" [[page="" 70094]]="" previously="" published="" notices="" of="" consideration="" of="" issuance="" of="" amendments="" to="" facility="" operating="" licenses,="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination,="" and="" opportunity="" for="" a="" hearing="" the="" following="" notices="" were="" previously="" published="" as="" separate="" individual="" notices.="" the="" notice="" content="" was="" the="" same="" as="" above.="" they="" were="" published="" as="" individual="" notices="" either="" because="" time="" did="" not="" allow="" the="" commission="" to="" wait="" for="" this="" biweekly="" notice="" or="" because="" the="" action="" involved="" exigent="" circumstances.="" they="" are="" repeated="" here="" because="" the="" biweekly="" notice="" lists="" all="" amendments="" issued="" or="" proposed="" to="" be="" issued="" involving="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration.="" for="" details,="" see="" the="" individual="" notice="" in="" the="" federal="" register="" on="" the="" day="" and="" page="" cited.="" this="" notice="" does="" not="" extend="" the="" notice="" period="" of="" the="" original="" notice.="" niagara="" mohawk="" power="" corporation,="" docket="" no.="" 50-410,="" nine="" mile="" point="" nuclear="" station,="" unit="" 2,="" oswego="" county,="" new="" york="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 8,="" 1999.="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" amendment="" changed="" action="" statements,="" definitions,="" and="" footnotes="" pertaining="" to="" the="" technical="" specifications="" for="" primary="" containment="" leakage="" and="" primary="" containment="" purge="" system="" to="" allow="" an="" alternative="" approach="" to="" the="" existing="" requirement.="" date="" of="" publication="" of="" individual="" notice="" in="" federal="" register:="" november="" 16,="" 1999="" (64="" fr="" 62228).="" expiration="" date="" of="" individual="" notice:="" december="" 16,="" 1999.="" notice="" of="" issuance="" of="" amendments="" to="" facility="" operating="" licenses="" during="" the="" period="" since="" publication="" of="" the="" last="" biweekly="" notice,="" the="" commission="" has="" issued="" the="" following="" amendments.="" the="" commission="" has="" determined="" for="" each="" of="" these="" amendments="" that="" the="" application="" complies="" with="" the="" standards="" and="" requirements="" of="" the="" atomic="" energy="" act="" of="" 1954,="" as="" amended="" (the="" act),="" and="" the="" commission's="" rules="" and="" regulations.="" the="" commission="" has="" made="" appropriate="" findings="" as="" required="" by="" the="" act="" and="" the="" commission's="" rules="" and="" regulations="" in="" 10="" cfr="" chapter="" i,="" which="" are="" set="" forth="" in="" the="" license="" amendment.="" notice="" of="" consideration="" of="" issuance="" of="" amendment="" to="" facility="" operating="" license,="" proposed="" no="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" determination,="" and="" opportunity="" for="" a="" hearing="" in="" connection="" with="" these="" actions="" was="" published="" in="" the="" federal="" register="" as="" indicated.="" unless="" otherwise="" indicated,="" the="" commission="" has="" determined="" that="" these="" amendments="" satisfy="" the="" criteria="" for="" categorical="" exclusion="" in="" accordance="" with="" 10="" cfr="" 51.22.="" therefore,="" pursuant="" to="" 10="" cfr="" 51.22(b),="" no="" environmental="" impact="" statement="" or="" environmental="" assessment="" need="" be="" prepared="" for="" these="" amendments.="" if="" the="" commission="" has="" prepared="" an="" environmental="" assessment="" under="" the="" special="" circumstances="" provision="" in="" 10="" cfr="" 51.12(b)="" and="" has="" made="" a="" determination="" based="" on="" that="" assessment,="" it="" is="" so="" indicated.="" for="" further="" details="" with="" respect="" to="" the="" action="" see="" (1)="" the="" applications="" for="" amendment,="" (2)="" the="" amendment,="" and="" (3)="" the="" commission's="" related="" letter,="" safety="" evaluation="" and/or="" environmental="" assessment="" as="" indicated.="" all="" of="" these="" items="" are="" available="" for="" public="" inspection="" at="" the="" commission's="" public="" document="" room,="" the="" gelman="" building,="" 2120="" l="" street,="" nw.,="" washington,="" dc,="" and="" electronically="" from="" the="" adams="" public="" library="" component="" on="" the="" nrc="" web="" site,="">http://www.nrc.gov (the 
    Electronic Reading Room).
    
    CBS Corporation, Docket No. 50-22, Westinghouse Test Reactor, Waltz 
    Mill, Pennsylvania
    
        Date of application for amendment: September 7, 1999, as 
    supplemented on October 1, 1999.
        Brief description of amendment: This amendment reassigns the 
    responsibilities of the Site Manager, who works for the Westinghouse 
    Electric Company (a contractor to CBS), to the TR-2 Decommissioning 
    Project Director, who works for CBS.
        Date of issuance: November 23, 1999.
        Effective Date: November 23, 1999.
        Amendment No: 10.
        Facility License No. TR-2: This amendment changes the 
    decommissioning plan.
        Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 20, 1999 (64 FR 
    56529).
        The Commission has issued a Safety Evaluation for this amendment 
    dated November 23, 1999.
        No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    
    Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket No. 50-254, Quad Cities Nuclear 
    Power Station, Unit 1, Rock Island County, Illinois
    
        Date of application for amendment: March 30, 1999.
        Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical 
    Specifications by changing Surveillance Requirement 4.6.E.2 to allow a 
    one-time extension of the 18-month requirement to pressure set test or 
    replace one half of the Main Steam Safety Valves to an interval of 24 
    months.
        Date of issuance: November 30, 1999.
        Effective date: Immediately, to be implemented within 60 days.
        Amendment No.: 191.
        Facility Operating License No. DPR-29: The amendment revised the 
    Technical Specifications.
        Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 5, 1999 (64 FR 
    24194).
        The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
    in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 1999.
        No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    
    Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear 
    Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
    
        Date of application for amendments: April 6, 1999.
        Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
    Technical Specifications (TS) to expand the allowable values for 
    Interlocks P-6 (Intermediate Range Neutron Flux) and P-10 (Power Range 
    Neutron Flux) in TS 3.3.1, Table 3.3.1-1, Function 16, Reactor Trip 
    System Interlocks, as recommended by Westinghouse.
        Date of issuance: November 30, 1999.
        Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
    within 30 days from the date of issuance.
        Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-189; Unit 2-170.
        Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: Amendments 
    revised the Technical Specifications.
        Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 19, 1999 (64 FR 
    27319).
        The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
    in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 1999.
        No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    
    FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear 
    Power Plant, Unit 1, Lake County, Ohio
    
        Date of application for amendment: May 5, 1999.
        Brief description of amendment: This amendment conforms the license 
    to reflect the transfer of Operating License NPF-58 for the Perry 
    Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, to the extent held by Duquesne Light 
    Company, to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company as previously 
    approved by an Order dated September 30, 1999.
        Date of issuance: December 3, 1999.
        Effective date: December 3, 1999.
    
    [[Page 70095]]
    
        Amendment No.: 108.
        Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the 
    operating license.
        Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 14, 1999 (64 FR 
    31879).
        The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
    in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 1999.
        No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    
    Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
    Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Dade County, Florida
    
        Date of application for amendments: July 27, 1999, as supplemented 
    October 4, 1999.
        Brief description of amendments: Revises the Technical 
    Specifications (TS) to extend the allowed outage time, on a one-time 
    basis, for an inoperable emergency diesel generator from 72 hours to 7 
    days, to replace the Unit 3 diesel engine radiators prior to April 
    2000. The revision applies to Turkey Point Unit 3 only, however, Unit 4 
    is included administratively because the TS are combined for both 
    Units.
        Date of issuance: November 19, 1999.
        Effective date: As of date of issuance, to be implemented prior to 
    April 2000.
        Amendment Nos.: 202 and 196.
        Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: Amendments 
    revised the TS.
        Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 25, 1999 (64 FR 
    46441). The supplemental letter of October 4, 1999, provided 
    clarification information that did not change the original no 
    significant hazards consideration determination.
        The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
    in a Safety Evaluation dated November 19, 1999.
        No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    
    Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald 
    C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
    
        Date of application for amendments: October 8, 1998.
        Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendments would 
    change the Technical Specifications for both units to place tighter 
    restrictions on the allowed outage time for the refueling water storage 
    tank water level instrumentation.
        Date of issuance: November 30, 1999.
        Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
    within 30 days.
        Amendment Nos.: 232 and 215.
        Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments 
    revised the Technical Specifications.
        Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 1999 (64 FR 
    47532). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
    contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 1999.
        No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    
    Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald 
    C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
    
        Date of application for amendments: September 10, 1999.
        Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical 
    Specification (TS) 3/4.4.7 so that the surveillance requirement does 
    not need to be performed when the reactor is defueled with no forced 
    circulation. The revision to TS 3/4.4.7 also includes changes to Tables 
    3.4-1 and 4.4-3. TS Table 4.4-3 is revised to change the reactor 
    coolant system (RCS) chemistry sampling frequency from three times per 
    7 days with a maximum interval of 72 hours to a frequency of at least 
    once per 72 hours. An editorial change to Unit 1 Tables 3.4-1 and 4.4-3 
    relocates the asterisk for the footnote to a position adjacent to the 
    parameter ``dissolved oxygen,'' from its current position next to the 
    allowable chemistry limit in Table 3.4-1 and the analysis frequency in 
    Table 4.4-3. An editorial change also corrects the footnote for Table 
    3.4-1 for Unit 1 and Unit 2 by making the word ``limit'' plural, as it 
    applies to both the steady-state and transient limits. Surveillance 
    Requirement 4.11.2.2 is revised to delete the phrase ``by analysis of 
    the Reactor Coolant System noble gases.''
        Date of issuance: November 19, 1999.
        Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
    within 45 days.
        Amendment Nos.: 231 and 214.
        Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments 
    revised the Technical Specifications.
        Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 6, 1999 (64 FR 
    54376).
        The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
    in a Safety Evaluation dated November 19, 1999.
        No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    
    PECO Energy Company, Docket No. 50-352, Limerick Generating Station, 
    Unit 1, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
    
        Date of application for amendment: June 7, 1999.
        Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical 
    specifications (TSs) to reflect the permanent deactivation in the 
    closed position of the ``wet'' instrument reference leg isolation valve 
    HV-61-102. Specifically, TS Table 3.6.3.1, ``Primary Containment 
    Isolation Valve,'' and its associated notations were revised to reflect 
    this current plant configuration.
        Date of issuance: November 18, 1999.
        Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
    within 30 days.
        Amendment No.: 138.
        Facility Operating License No. NPF-39. This amendment revised the 
    TSs.
        Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 6, 1999 (64 FR 
    54380).
        The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
    in a Safety Evaluation dated November 18, 1999.
        No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    
    Power Authority of the State of New York, Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
    FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
    
        Date of application for amendment: January 15, 1999, as 
    supplemented January 18 and October 22, 1999.
        Brief description of amendment: The amendment provides a revision 
    to the Technical Specifications for the FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 
    by modifying the description of what constitutes an acceptable Local 
    Power Range Monitor calibration.
        Date of issuance: November 22, 1999.
        Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
    30 days.
        Amendment No.: 257.
        Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: Amendment revised the 
    Technical Specifications.
        Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 10, 1999 (64 FR 
    11965).
        The January 18, 1999, and October 22, 1999, letters provided 
    clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no 
    significant hazards consideration determination.
        The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
    in a Safety Evaluation dated November 22, 1999.
        No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    
    Power Authority of the State of New York, Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
    FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
    
        Date of application for amendment: June 22, 1999.
    
    [[Page 70096]]
    
        Brief description of amendment: This amendment changes the 
    Technical Specifications by extending the pressure-temperature (P-T) 
    limit curves to 24 effective full-power years (EFPY) and 32 EFPY. The 
    current P-T limit curves are valid through 16 EFPY.
        Date of issuance: November 29, 1999.
        Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
    30 days.
        Amendment No.: 258.
        Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: Amendment revised the 
    Technical Specifications.
        Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 11, 1999 (64 FR 
    43775).
        The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
    in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 1999.
        No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    
    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
    364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
    Alabama
    
        Date of amendments request: June 30 1997, as supplemented by 
    letters of February 22, March 19, June 30, and October 4, 1999.
        Brief Description of amendments: The amendments change the 
    Technical Specifications (TS) to clarify surveillance requirements for 
    the control room emergency filtration system, penetration room 
    filtration system, and related storage pool ventilation system. The 
    changes also revised the required number of radiation monitoring 
    instrumentation channels, and deleted the containment purge exhaust 
    filter TS.
        Date of issuance: November 23, 1999.
        Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
    within 120 days from the date of issuance.
        Amendment Nos.: 145 and 136.
        Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: Amendments revise 
    the Technical Specifications.
        Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 1, 1999 (64 
    FR 47870).
        The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
    in a Safety Evaluation dated November 23, 1999.
        No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    
    Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-271, Vermont 
    Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont
    
        Date of application for amendment: September 21, 1999.
        Brief description of amendment: The amendment increases the 
    required volume of stored fuel in the diesel fuel oil storage tank as a 
    result of a conservative recalculation of diesel generator fuel 
    consumption.
        Date of Issuance: November 22, 1999.
        Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
    implemented within 30 days.
        Amendment No.: 180.
        Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the 
    Technical Specifications.
        Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 20, 1999 (64 FR 
    56537). The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is 
    contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 22, 1999.
        No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    
    Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
    Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
    
        Date of amendment request: September 21, 1999, as supplemented by 
    letter dated November 5, 1999.
        Brief description of amendment: The amendment extended the 
    effective full implementation date by six months, from December 31, 
    1999, to June 30, 2000, for Amendment No. 120 issued March 22, 1999, 
    that approved a modification to increase the storage capacity of spent 
    fuel assemblies at the site. The extension is due to delays fabricating 
    and installing the new fuel storage racks.
        Date of issuance: November 30, 1999.
        Effective date: November 30, 1999, to be implemented by June 30, 
    2000.
        Amendment No.: 129.
        Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment revised the 
    Technical Specifications.
        Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 20, 1999 (64 FR 
    56538). The supplemental letter of November 5, 1999, provided 
    additional clarifying information, did not expand the scope of the 
    application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
    original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination 
    published in the Federal Register.
        The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
    in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 1999.
        No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    
    Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
    Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and 
    Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency 
    Circumstances)
    
        During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
    the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
    determined for each of these amendments that the application for the 
    amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic 
    Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules 
    and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as 
    required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 
    CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
        Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
    date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
    publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual 30-day Notice of 
    Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
    Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
        For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
    Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
    used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
    surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
    the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
    consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
    the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
    public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
    the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
    transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
    public comments.
        In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
    resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
    or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
    power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
    not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
    significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
    license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
    there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the 
    Commission may provide an
    
    [[Page 70097]]
    
    opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is 
    so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone 
    whenever possible.
        Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
    amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
    of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
    and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
    significant hazards consideration is involved.
        The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
    made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
    hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
    the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
    been issued and made effective as indicated.
        Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
    these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
    accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
    no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
    prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
    environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
    10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
    it is so indicated.
        For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
    application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
    License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation 
    and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are 
    available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
    Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and 
    electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web 
    site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading Room).
        The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
    respect to the issuance of the amendment. By January 14, 1999, the 
    licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
    the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
    whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
    participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
    for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a 
    hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in 
    accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic 
    Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should 
    consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the 
    Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, 
    NW., Washington, DC and electronically from the ADAMS Public Library 
    component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic 
    Reading Room). If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to 
    intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic 
    Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the 
    Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on 
    the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic 
    Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an 
    appropriate order.
        As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene 
    shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
    the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
    the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
    why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
    following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the 
    Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
    the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
    proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be 
    entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition 
    should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of 
    the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person 
    who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been 
    admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of 
    the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
    scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy 
    the specificity requirements described above.
        Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
    scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to 
    the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions 
    which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must 
    consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
    raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a 
    brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise 
    statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the 
    contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
    contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references 
    to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
    aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
    facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information 
    to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material 
    issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within 
    the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be 
    one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 
    petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these 
    requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be 
    permitted to participate as a party.
        Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
    subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
    and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
    hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
    examine witnesses. Since the Commission has made a final determination 
    that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a 
    hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the 
    amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in 
    effect.
        A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
    be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
    Adjudications Staff or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
    Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, 
    by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the 
    Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
    Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the attorney for the licensee.
        Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
    petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for a hearing will 
    not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the 
    presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the 
    petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the 
    factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    
    Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee 
    Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
    
        Date of application of amendments: November 17, 1999.
        Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
    Technical Specifications to modify the definition
    
    [[Page 70098]]
    
    of steam generator repair limit for axial tube imperfections detected 
    between the primary side surface of the tube sheet clad and the end of 
    the tube.
        Date of Issuance: December 3, 1999.
        Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
    within 30 days from the date of issuance.
        Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-308; Unit 2-308; Unit 3-308.
        Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
    Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
        Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
    consideration: Yes. The NRC published a public notice of the proposed 
    amendments, issued a proposed finding of no significant hazards 
    consideration and requested that any comments on the proposed no 
    significant hazards consideration be provided to the staff by the close 
    of business on December 2, 1999. The notice was published in the 
    ``Greenville News,'' Greenville, SC; and the ``Anderson Independent-
    Mail,'' Anderson, SC, on November 24, 1999. No comments have been 
    received.
        The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments, finding of 
    exigent circumstances, consultation with the State of South Carolina, 
    and final no significant hazards consideration determination are 
    contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 3, 1999.
        Attorney for licensee: Richard W. Blackburn, Esquire, Winston and 
    Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW, Washington DC 20005.
        NRC Section Chief: Richard L. Emch, Jr.
    
    Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
    362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego 
    County, California
    
        Date of application for amendments: November 10, 1999 (PCN-510).
        Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the 
    Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation 3.4.9.b to 
    delete the phrase stating that two groups of pressurizer heaters be 
    ``capable of being powered from an emergency power supply.
        Date of issuance: November 22, 1999.
        Effective date: November 22, 1999.
        Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-161; Unit 3-152.
        Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments 
    revised the Technical Specifications.
        Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
    consideration: Yes. The NRC published a public notice of the proposed 
    amendments, issued a proposed finding of no significant hazards 
    consideration, and requested that any comments on the proposed no 
    significant hazards consideration be provided to the staff by close of 
    business November 19 , 1999. The notice was published in the ORANGE 
    COUNTY REGISTER on November 15-16, 1999. No public comments were 
    received.
        The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments, finding of 
    exigent circumstances, and final determination of no significant 
    hazards consideration are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 
    November 22, 1999.
        Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern 
    California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, 
    California 91770.
        NRC Section Chief: Stephen Dembek.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of December 1999.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    John A. Zwolinski,
    Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
    Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 99-32311 Filed 12-14-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
11/23/1999
Published:
12/15/1999
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
99-32311
Dates:
November 23, 1999.
Pages:
70077-70098 (22 pages)
PDF File:
99-32311.pdf