[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65671-65694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-21220]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65672]]
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 27, 1995, through December 8, 1995.
The last biweekly notice was published on December 6, 1995 (60 FR
62485).
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 Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, 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 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 19, 1996, 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 at the local public
document room for the particular facility involved. 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
[[Page 65673]]
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, 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, 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 at the local public document room for
the particular facility involved.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN
50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station,
Units Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendments request: November 7, 1995
Description of amendments request: The proposed amendment would
adopt the improved Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-1432)
format and content of Section 5.0, ``Design Features,'' as modified by
approved changes to the improved Standard Technical Specifications.
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 amendment does not change the Design Features, only
relocates the information to other documents. This is consistent
with the NRC Policy Statement and NUREG-1432. Therefore, relocating
existing information, eliminating information which duplicates
information found in other licensee documents, and making
administrative improvements provide Technical Specifications which
are easier to use. Because information is relocated to established
programs where changes to those programs are controlled by
regulatory requirements, there is no reduction in commitment and
adequate control is still maintained. Likewise, the elimination of
information which duplicates information in other licensee
documents, enhances the useability of the Technical Specifications
without reducing commitments. The administrative improvements being
proposed neither add nor delete requirements, but merely clarify and
improve the understanding and readability of the Technical
Specifications. Since the requirements remain the same, these
changes only affect the method of presentation and are considered
administrative, and as such, would not affect possible initiating
events for accidents previously evaluated or any system functional
requirement.
Therefore, the proposed changes would 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 relocation of existing requirements, the elimination of
requirements which duplicate existing information, and making
administrative improvements are all changes that are administrative
in nature. The proposed changes will not affect any plant system or
structure, nor will they affect any system functional or operability
requirements. Consequently, no new failure modes are introduced as a
result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes are consistent
with the improved Standard Technical Specifications, for the most
part, as plant specific information is included in this section.
Therefore, the proposed change would not create the possibility of a
new or different type of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature in that no
change[s] to the design features of the facility are being made. The
Design Features Section is being reformatted to be consistent, for
the most part, with NUREG-1432, ``Standard Technical Specifications,
Combustion Engineering Plants,'' Revision 1. The proposed changes do
not affect the UFSAR design bases, accident assumptions, or
Technical Specification Bases. In addition, the proposed changes do
not affect release limits, monitoring equipment, or practices.
Consequently, the proposed changes would not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
that review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendments request involve no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Phoenix Public Library, 1221
N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Attorney for licensee: Nancy C. Loftin, Esq., Corporate Secretary
and Counsel, Arizona Public Service Company, P.O. Box 53999, Mail
Station 9068, Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999
NRC Project Director: William H. Bateman
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam
Neck Plant, Middlesex County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: October 20, 1995
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Electrical Power Systems Surveillance Intervals from 18
months to once per refueling (i.e., nominal 24 months).
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
[[Page 65674]]
below. The no significant hazards consideration analysis has been
divided into three parts: AC Sources Operating, DC Sources Operating,
and On-Site Power distribution:
In accordance with 10CFR50.92, CYAPCO has reviewed the proposed
changes and concluded that they do not involve an SHC. The basis for
this conclusion is that the three criteria of 10CFR50.92(c) are not
compromised. The proposed changes do not involve an SHC because the
changes would not:
AC Sources Operating
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will increase the interval between a
surveillance that is performed during plant shutdown from once per
18 months to a maximum of once per 30 months (i.e., 24 months
nominal + 25% as allowed by Specification 4.0.2). The proposed
change to Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2.f does not alter the
intent or the method by which the surveillance is conducted. In
addition, the acceptance criterion for the surveillance is
unchanged. As such, the proposed change will not degrade the ability
of the EDG [emergency diesel generator] to perform its intended
function.
A review of the past surveillances, and preventive maintenance
of the diesel generators indicates that the appropriate acceptance
criterion was met in each case. Additional assurance of the diesel
generator's operability is provided by Surveillance Requirement
4.8.1.1.2.a.4 and the performance of other on-line testing as
described above. As such, the proposed changes do not adversely
affect the probability of an accident previously analyzed.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
than any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change regarding the testing frequency of the
diesel generators [i.e., from once per 18 months to a maximum of
once per 30 months (i.e., 24 months + 25 percent as allowed by
Specification 4.0.2)] does not affect the operation or response of
any plant equipment, including the diesel generators, or introduce
any new failure mechanism. The proposed change does not affect the
test acceptance criteria of the EDGs. The plant equipment will
respond per design and analyses, and there will not be a malfunction
of a new or different type introduced by the testing frequency
revision to the EDG surveillance requirements. As such, the changes
do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously analyzed.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The Bases Section of Technical Specification Section 3/4.8,
``Electrical Power Systems,'' states that the operability of the AC
and DC power systems and associated distribution systems ensure that
sufficient power will be available to supply the safety-related
equipment required for safe shutdown and mitigation and control of
accident conditions. Bases Section 3/4.8 also states that the
surveillance requirements for determining the operability of the
EDGs are in accordance with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide
1.108, Revision 1. The revision of surveillance requirements will
continue to verify that the EDGs are operable. Operable EDGs ensure
that the assumptions in the Bases of the Technical Specifications
are not affected and ensure that the margin of safety is not
reduced. Therefore, the assumptions in the Bases of the Technical
Specifications are not affected and the change does not result in a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
DC Sources Operating
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
CYAPCO is proposing to modify the frequency of Surveillance
Requirements 4.8.2.1.c, d, and f of the Haddam Neck Plant Technical
Specifications from at least once per 18 months to at least once
each refueling interval. These surveillance requirements verify the
operability of components of the Class 1E DC power system. CYAPCO is
also proposing to delete the term ``during shutdown'' contained in
Surveillance Requirements 4.8.2.1.d, 4.8.2.1.e, and 4.8.2.1.f.
Additional assurance of the operability of the Class 1E DC power
system is provided by Surveillance Requirements 4.8.2.1.a, b, and e.
The proposed changes do not alter the intent or method by which
the surveillances are conducted, do not involve any physical changes
to the plant, do not alter the way any structure, system, or
component functions, and do not modify the manner in which the plant
is operated. As such, the proposed changes in the frequency of
Surveillance Requirements 4.8.2.1.c, d, and f will not degrade the
ability of the Class 1E DC power system to perform its intended
safety function. Also, the Class 1E DC power system is designed to
perform its intended safety function even in the event of a single
failure.
Equipment performance over the last four operating cycles was
evaluated to determine the impact of extending the frequency of
Surveillance Requirements 4.8.2.1.c, d and f. cThis evaluation
included a review of surveillance results, preventive maintenance
associated with normal surveillance activities, and corrective
maintenance records. It concluded that the Class 1E DC power system
is highly reliable, and that there is no indication that the
proposed extension could cause deterioration in the condition or
performance of any of the subject Class 1E DC power system
components.
The deletion of the phrase ``during shutdown'' in Surveillance
Requirement 4.8.2.1.d, e, and f is acceptable. The terms ``Cold
Shutdown'' and ``Hot Shutdown'' are defined in the Haddam Neck Plant
Technical Specifications as operating modes or conditions. The
proposed deletion of the term ``during shutdown'' is intended to
prevent possible misinterpretations and is consistent with the
recommendations of GL 91-04.
Based on the above, the proposed changes to Surveillance
Requirements 4.8.2.1.c, d, e, and f of the Haddam Neck Plant
Technical Specifications do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
than any accident previously evaluated.
CYAPCO is proposing to modify the frequency of Surveillance
Requirements 4.8.2.1.c, d, and f of the Haddam Neck Plant Technical
Specifications from at least once per 18 months to at least once
each refueling interval. CYAPCO is also proposing to delete the term
``during shutdown'' contained in Surveillance Requirements
4.8.2.1.d, 4.8.2.1.e, and 4.8.2.1.f. These surveillance requirements
verify the operability of components of the Class 1E DC power
system.
The proposed changes do not alter the intent or method by which
the surveillances are conducted, do not involve any physical changes
to the plant, do not alter the way any structure, system, or
component functions, and do not modify the manner in which the plant
is operated. As such, the proposed changes to Surveillance
Requirements 4.8.2.1.c, d, e, and f will not introduce a new failure
mode.
Based on the above, the proposed changes to Surveillance
Requirements 4.8.2.1.c, d, e, and f of the Haddam Neck Plant
Technical Specifications will not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
CYAPCO is proposing to modify the frequency of Surveillance
Requirements 4.8.2.1.c, d, and f of the Haddam Neck Plant Technical
Specifications from at least once per 18 months to at least once
each refueling interval. CYAPCO is also proposing to delete the term
``during shutdown'' contained in Surveillance Requirements
4.8.2.1.d, 4.8.2.1.e, and 4.8.2.1.f. These surveillance requirements
verify the operability of components of the Class 1E DC power
system.
Equipment performance over the last four operating cycles was
evaluated to determine the impact of extending the frequency of
Surveillance Requirements 4.8.2.1.c, d and f. This evaluation
included a review of surveillance results, preventive maintenance
associated with normal surveillance activities, and corrective
maintenance records. It concluded that the Class 1E DC power system
is highly reliable, and that there is no indication that the
proposed extension could cause deterioration in the condition or
performance of any of the subject Class 1E DC power system
components.
Additional assurance of the operability of the Class 1E DC power
system is provided by Surveillance Requirements 4.8.2.1.a, b, and e.
Since decreasing the surveillance frequency does not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of a design basis accident
previously analyzed, the proposed changes to Surveillance
Requirements 4.8.2.1.c, d, e, and f of the Haddam Neck Plant
Technical Specifications do not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety.
[[Page 65675]]
On-Site Power Distribution
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to Surveillance Requirement 4.8.3.1.2 will
increase the surveillance interval from once each refueling outage
(once per 18 months) to a maximum of once per 30 months (i.e., 24
months nominal + 25% as allowed by Specification 4.0.2.). The
proposed change to Surveillance Requirement 4.8.3.1.2 does not alter
the intent or the method by which the surveillance is conducted. In
addition, the acceptance criterion for the surveillance is
unchanged. As such, the proposed changes will not degrade the
ability of the MCC-5 ABT scheme to perform its intended function.
The successful past surveillance results, and the simpler re-
design of the MCC-5 ABT provide assurance of system operability up
to a maximum of 30 months. As such, the proposed changes do not
adversely affect the probability or consequences of an accident
previously analyzed.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
than any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the intent or method by which
the surveillance is conducted, does not involve any physical changes
to the plant, does not alter the way any structure, system, or
component functions, and does not modify the manner in which the
plant is operated. As such, the proposed change to Surveillance
Requirement 4.8.3.1.2 will not introduce a new failure mode.
Based on the above, the proposed change to Surveillance
Requirement 4.8.3.1.3 of the Haddam Neck Plant Technical
Specifications will not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change to Surveillance Requirement 4.8.3.1.2
extends the frequency for verifying the operability of the MCC-5 ABT
scheme from at least once per 18 months to at least once per
refueling interval (i.e., 24 months nominal + 25% as allowed by
Specification 4.0.2).
The proposed change does not alter the intent or method by which
the surveillance is conducted, does not involve any physical changes
to the plant, does not alter the way any structure, system, or
component functions, and does not modify the manner in which the
plant is operated. As such, the proposed change in the frequency of
Surveillance Requirement 4.8.3.1.2 will not degrade the ability of
the MCC-5 ABT to perform its safety function and 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.
Local Public Document Room location: Russell Library, 123 Broad
Street, Middletown, CT 06457.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Nuclear
Counsel, Northeast Utilities Service Company, P.O. Box 270, Hartford,
CT 06141-0270.
NRC Project Director: Phillip F. McKee
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam
Neck Plant, Middlesex County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: October 27, 1995
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment will
revise Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.6.3, ``Containment
Isolation Valves.'' These changes will clarify the action statement for
when a penetration has only one containment isolation valve (CIV) and
that valve is inoperable.
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 (SHC), which is presented below:
...The proposed change does not involve an SHC because the
change would not:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The containment isolation system is an engineered safety feature
that functions to allow normal or emergency passage of fluids
through the containment boundary, while preserving the ability of
the boundary to prevent or limit the escape of fission products that
may result from postulated accidents.
All fluid system pipelines that penetrate the containment are
provided with one or more valves that can be closed remotely, either
electrically or pneumatically, or are locked manual valves. Most of
the piping penetrations connect to equipment inside the reactor
containment. Thus, they are not open to the reactor containment
atmosphere and will not pass radioactive contamination to the CIV
unless the pipe is ruptured inside containment during an accident.
Lines that penetrate the reactor containment and are not in
service during operation are isolated with one or more locked closed
CIVs. Lines that are in service and that pass fluids during
operation are provided with one or more motor-operated valves,
positive closure trip valves, or check-valves.
The lack of guidance contained in Technical Specification
Section 3.6.3 for a penetration that has only one CIV in it, does
not increase the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. This design, and the consequences that could
result from this configuration have been evaluated previously and
found acceptable. The proposed modification simply provides guidance
to the operators should a penetration with only one CIV becomes
inoperable. This proposed technical specification will, as do other
technical specification action statements, provide a reasonable time
to correct the situation before a required shutdown must commence.
In addition, this proposed Action Statement was developed to be
consistent with Technical Specification Section 3.0.3.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed modification provides guidance to the operators
should a penetration which has only one CIV be inoperable. This
design has been previously evaluated and found to be acceptable from
both a deterministic and probabilistic standpoint. The proposed
modification will provide the operators specific guidance to restore
the penetration to an operable state or to isolate it. With this
guidance, they can avert the risk associated with a plant shutdown,
which would be mandated without this guidance. Should a CIV be
inoperable and not capable of being restored, the proposed technical
specification provides additional options. However, a probabilistic
risk assessment review has determined that these additional options
are not risk significant. Finally, the containment isolation system
cannot be an accident initiator, rather it is designed to respond to
accidents. The inability of the CIVs to operate cannot create a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed modification provides the requirement to the
operators should a penetration which has only one CIV be inoperable.
The effects of this design have been previously evaluated and found
to be acceptable from both a deterministic and probabilistic
standpoint.
The current Haddam Neck Plant containment isolation system has
been previously reviewed by the NRC. CYAPCO is not making any
changes to the containment isolation system. CYAPCO is however,
providing guidance in the technical specifications should a
penetration which has only one CIV be inoperable. This guidance will
allow CYAPCO to correct the event associated with the penetration
with an NRC approved alternative, in a set time. This provision is
safe especially when compared to the alternative which is a plant
shutdown under Technical Specification Section 3.0.3.
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.
Local Public Document Room location: Russell Library, 123 Broad
Street, Middletown, CT 06457.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Nuclear
Counsel, Northeast Utilities Service Company, P.O. Box 270, Hartford,
CT 06141-0270.
[[Page 65676]]
NRC Project Director: Phillip F. McKee
Duke Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 17, 1995
Description of amendment request: The Commission issued Amendment
Nos. 128 and 122 to the Facility Operating Licenses for Catawba Units 1
and 2 on February 17, 1995, which revised Technical Specification (TS)
Table 2.2-1 and TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.2.5 to allow a
change in the method for measuring reactor coolant system (RCS)
flowrate from the calorimetric heat balance method to a method based on
a one-time calibration of the RCS cold leg elbow differential pressure
taps. In its application submitted on January 10, 1994, for the above
listed amendments, Duke Power (the licensee) neglected to modify SR
4.2.5.2 to delete that portion of the SR that specifies that the
measurement instrumentation shall be calibrated within 7 days prior to
the performance of the flowrate measurement. The licensee states that
the requirement to calibrate the measurement instrumentation within 7
days prior to the performance of the flowrate measurement is
impractical based on utilization of the cold leg elbow pressure tap
method of RCS flowrate measurement. Accordingly, the licensee proposes
to modify SR 4.2.5.2 to reflect the deletion of the subject
requirement.
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:
Criterion 1
The requested amendments will not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. This change is considered administrative in nature and
should have been requested in Duke Power Company's January 10, 1994
application, as amended. The instrumentation which was subject to
the requirement is no longer utilized in the fulfillment of the TS
required RCS flowrate determination. The proposed changes will not
result in any impact upon accident probabilities, since the RCS
flowrate measurement instrumentation is not accident initiating
equipment. Likewise, they will not result in any impact upon
accident consequences, since no change to any method or frequency of
calibration of the RCS flowrate transmitters will result. The plant
response to accidents will not be affected.
Criterion 2
The requested amendments will not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. No change is being made to any plant design feature, or
to the manner in which the plant will be operated. Therefore, no new
accident causal mechanisms can be generated. As noted above, the
proposed changes are considered administrative in nature, and should
have been requested in the January 10, 1994 application, as amended.
Criterion 3
The requested amendments will not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. No impact upon any fission product
barriers will occur as a result of the approval of the proposed
changes. No change to plant design, operating, maintenance, or test
characteristics will result from the proposed amendments. No impact
upon any plant safety margins will result.
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.
Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East
Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Albert Carr, Duke Power Company, 422
South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
NRC Project Director: Herbert N. Berkow
Duke Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 15, 1995
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.1 and the associated Bases to
increase the setpoint tolerance of the main steam safety valves (MSSVs)
from plus or minus one percent to plus or minus three percent, to
incorporate a requirement to reset as-left MSSV lift settings to within
plus or minus one percent following surveillance testing, and to delete
two obsolete footnotes.
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:
Criterion 1
The requested amendments will not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. As demonstrated previously, all applicable licensing
basis safety analyses were evaluated with a MSSV setpoint drift of
plus or minus 3%. The results of the evaluations were within all
appropriate accident analysis acceptance criteria. No significant
impact on DNBR results, peak primary or secondary pressures, peak
fuel cladding temperature, dose, or any other accident analysis
acceptance criterion was involved. No impact on the probability of
any accident occurring exists as a result of the increased MSSV
setpoint tolerance.
Criterion 2
The requested amendments will not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. No change is being made to any plant design feature, or
to the manner in which the plant will be operated. Therefore, no new
accident causal mechanisms can be generated. The MSSV setpoint
tolerance only affects the time at which the valve opens following
or during a transient, and is not a contributor to the probability
of an accident.
Criterion 3
The requested amendments will not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. As stated above, all relevant
accident analyses were examined to determine the effect of the wider
MSSV setpoint tolerances. All analysis results are within applicable
acceptance criteria. Finally, the NRC has previously approved TS
changes for other plants seeking to use the [plus or minus] 3
[percent] setpoint tolerance, including McGuire Nuclear Station
(reference Amendment Nos. 146 and 128 for Units 1 and 2,
respectively).
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.
Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East
Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Albert Carr, Duke Power Company, 422
South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
NRC Project Director: Herbert N. Berkow
Duke Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 15, 1995
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments modify
Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation 3.7.5 to
raise the minimum nuclear service water system's (RN) water level in
the standby nuclear service water pond (SNSWP) from 570 to 571 feet
mean sea level.
[[Page 65677]]
This change will increase the volume of water that will be available
for use of the SNSWP as the ultimate heat sink for postulated accidents
under all meteorological conditions.
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:
Criterion 1
The requested amendments will not involve a significant increase
in the probabililty or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. The proposed amendments will have no impact upon any
accident probabilities, since the RN system is not a accident
initiating system. It is an accident mitigating system. Accident
consequences will not be affected, since the proposed amendments
will require a greater surface area for heat transfer from the SNSWP
water to the environment. It has been determined that with the
required TS minimum water level of 571 feet and with the required TS
temperature limit of 91.5F [degrees Farenheit], the SNSWP will be
capable of fulfilling all design basis requirements pertaining to
accident mitigation.
Criterion 2
The requested amendments will not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. As stated previously, the RN system is not an accident
initiator. No change is being made to the plant which would cause
the RN system to become an accident initiator. All relevant
procedures will be changed as required, commensurate with the NRC
issuance of the requested amendments. No accident causal mechanisms
will be affected. The effect of the increased SNSWP level on the
SNSWP dam was evaluated and found to be negligible.
Criterion 3
The requested amendments will not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. As noted above, the SNSWP was
evaluatd with the new TS level requirement and was determined to be
operable and capable of meeting all design basis requirements. No
impact on any fission product barriers is created by the proposed
changes. The proposed changes will ensure that the RN system remains
capable of fulfilling its required accident mitigating functions.
SNSWP temperature will continue to be monitored at an elevation of
568 feet, which is considered to be the highest elevation at which
the average SNSWP surface temperature is accurately represented and
minimally influenced by daily temperature swings due to variations
in solar heat input, air temperature, and rainfall temperature.
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.
Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East
Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Albert Carr, Duke Power Company, 422
South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
NRC Project Director: Herbert N. Berkow
Duke Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 20, 1992, as supplemented
December 5, 1995.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments, would
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) related to the 60-month 120-
volt battery surveillance requirement. The proposed change is to delete
the words ``during shutdown'' from SR 4.8.2.1.2.e (performance
discharge test). The licensee contends that the ``during shutdown''
provision in the TS is an impractical requirement because both units
would have to be shutdown to perform the performance discharge test
(PDT).
In the licensee's supplement dated December 5, 1995, proposed
changes were made to TS 3/4 8.2 Bases to support the frequency of the
PDT on the other batteries in the system after a battery that had its
PDT performed is returned to service.
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 amendment seeks to change the surveillance
requirements to allow the performance with the units on line. The
surveillance can be safely completed as proposed without affecting
unit operation. The equipment would not be removed from service for
a time that would exceed the current allowed outage time. The
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated
will not be increased because the removal of a battery from service
can be performed while on line, and the loads of each battery can be
assumed by another same-train battery which is the case for the
battery being inoperable for any other reason. During the allowed
outage time, even a single failure of any component (including
Emergency Diesel Generator) will still leave a full capacity train
available to provide instrumentation and control power for both
units. Train redundancy is maintained at all times. Compensatory
action is taken to prohibit discharge testing of the other remaining
batteries within 10 days following a battery performance discharge
test to ensure that the tested battery is fully recharged.
Probabilistic Risk Analysis shows that the increase in Core Damage
Frequency due to this operation is negligible.
2. The proposed amendment will not change any actual
surveillance requirements, the change would simply allow the
requirements to be met at different unit conditions. The performance
of the surveillance with the units on line does not require any new
component configurations that would reduce the ability of any
equipment to mitigate an accident. The station would not be in any
degraded status beyond that which has previously been evaluated.
Therefore the proposed change will not create the possibility of a
new accident.
3. The change would allow a battery to be removed from service
for testing. However, the testing must be completed within the
current allowed outage time. As the allowed outage time defines the
required margin of safety for equipment operability, removing
equipment from service for testing and returning it to service
within the allowed time does not affect a margin of safety.
Compensatory action is taken to prohibit discharge testing of the
other remaining batteries within 10 days following a battery
performance discharge test to ensure that the tested battery is
fully recharged.
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.
Local Public Document Room location: Atkins Library, University of
North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC Station), North Carolina 28223
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Albert Carr, Duke Power Company, 422
South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
NRC Project Director: Herbert N. Berkow
Duquesne Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412,
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Shippingport,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: November 6, 1995
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the alarm setpoints for the noble gas and in-containment high
range area radiation monitors listed in Table 3.3-6 of Beaver Valley
Power Station, Unit 1 Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.3.1. The
proposed revisions would make these alarm setpoints consistent with the
criteria in the Emergency Action Levels (EALs) which were revised and
[[Page 65678]]
approved by the NRC in August 1994. The revised EALs use the noble gas
radiation monitors as indications of effluent releases and are based on
dose to the public. The revised EALs use the in-containment high range
area radiation monitors as indication of fission product barrier
challenges or failures rather than as indications of effluent release.
The proposed amendment would also revise Action Statement 36 of
Table 3.3-6 of TS 3.3.3.1 for both BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 to reflect a
previously approved change in reporting frequency for effluent
releases. BVPS-1 License Amendment No. 188 and BVPS-2 License Amendment
No. 70 (both issued on June 12, 1995) approved a change in the
reporting frequency for effluent releases from semi-annual to annual.
The proposed change would make Action Statement 36 consistent with this
previously approved change.
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 or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed monitor alarm setpoint changes and editorial
changes are administrative in nature. Should the radiation alarm
fail to annunciate or give a false alarm, there would be no affect
on any other plant equipment or systems. The noble gas monitors are
not safety related and do not interface with any safety related
system. The containment area monitors are safety related; however,
they do not initiate any safety function, nor do they interface with
any other safety related system.
The monitors' alarm as a visual (lighted icon) and audible alarm
in the control room. The operator is then responsible for taking any
corrective actions necessary, based on the alarm and Emergency
Action Level (EAL) guidelines. The monitors do not provide for any
automatic actions of other equipment or systems when an alarm
condition occurs.
The operating and design parameters of the radiation monitors
will not change. The proposed change affects only the radiation
level at which an alarm condition is created and does not affect any
accident assumptions or radiological consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change will 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 radiation monitor alarm revisions cannot initiate a
new type of accident. A failure of the monitor itself cannot serve
as the initiating event of an accident and has no effect on the
operation of a safety system. Operator action is not made solely on
a radiation monitor alarm; other plant condition indicators are also
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
The referenced radiation monitoring channels have no capability
to mitigate the consequences of an accident. Also, they do not
interface with any safety related system. The containment area
monitors are safety related channels which provide indication to the
operator of the integrity of the fission product barriers in
containment. This indication, combined with other indications of
plant conditions may direct an operator to take action to mitigate
the consequences of an accident. The alarm setpoint itself does not
perform any specific safety related function and the trip value is
not referenced in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR),
nor does any site design basis document take credit for this
setpoint. Safety limits and limiting safety system settings are not
affected by this proposed change. Also, the site will continue to
meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 which limits offsite dose
following a postulated fission product release.
Therefore, use of the proposed technical specification would 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.
Local Public Document Room location: B. F. Jones Memorial Library,
663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.
Attorney for licensee: Jay E. Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman,
Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz
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 22, 1995
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to change
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 Technical Specifications (TS) Index to
delete reference to the BASES. The proposed revisions to Turkey Point
Units 3 and 4 TS are administrative in nature. Changes to the TS BASES
will be controlled by a plant procedure under administrative controls
and reviews. Proposed changes to the TS BASES will be evaluated in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
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 proposed amendments are administrative in nature and do not
affect assumptions contained in plant safety analyses, the physical
design and operation of the plant, nor do they affect Technical
Specifications that preserve safety analysis assumptions. The
Technical Specification BASES, per 10 CFR 50.36(a), are not a part
of the Technical Specifications. Changes to the TS BASES will be
controlled by a plant procedure under administrative controls and
reviews. Proposed changes to the TS BASES will be evaluated in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. Therefore, the proposed change does
not affect the probability or consequences of accidents previously
analyzed.
(2) The proposed license amendments do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed amendments are administrative in nature. The
proposed amendments will not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated
since the proposed amendments will not change the physical plant or
the modes of plant operation defined in the facility operating
license. No new failure mode is introduced due to the administrative
change, since the proposed change does not involve the addition or
modification of equipment nor does it alter the design or operation
of affected plant systems, structures, or components.
(3) The proposed license amendments do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The operating limits and functional capabilities of the affected
systems, structures, and components are unchanged by the proposed
amendments. The BASES information, per 10 CFR 50.36(a), is not a
part of the Technical Specifications. Changes to the TS BASES will
be controlled by a plant procedure under administrative controls and
reviews. Proposed changes to the TS BASES will be evaluated in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. Therefore, the proposed change does
not reduce any 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.
Local Public Document Room location: Florida International
[[Page 65679]]
University, University Park, Miami, Florida 33199
Attorney for licensee: J. R. Newman, Esquire, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036
NRC Project Director: David B. Matthews
Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit No. 3, Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment request: November 3, 1995
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the technical specifications (TS) to delay for one cycle the
volumetric and surface examinations of the Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP)
motor flywheels required by Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.14, Regulatory
position C.4.b, incorporated by reference in Technical Specification
5.6.2.8.c, to coincide with Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3) Refueling
Outage 11, scheduled for Spring 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. The proposed change will not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The safety function of the RCP flywheels is to provide a
coastdown period during which the RCPs would continue to provide
reactor coolant flow to the reactor after loss of power to the RCPs.
The maximum loading on the RCP motor flywheel results from overspeed
following a large LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident]. The estimated
maximum obtainable speed in the event of a Reactor Coolant System
piping break was established conservatively. The proposed one time
change does not affect that analysis. Reduced coastdown times due to
a single failed flywheel would not place the plant in an unanalyzed
condition since a locked rotor (instantaneous coastdown) is analyzed
in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]. The proposed change does
not increase the amount of radioactive material available for
release or modify any systems used for mitigation of such releases
during accident conditions. Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change will not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change will not change the design, configuration,
or method of operation of the plant. Therefore, the proposed change
will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction
to any margin of safety.
FPC [Florida Power Corporation] has performed two full
volumetric examinations in excess of those recommended in RG 1.14,
Revision 1 during the Second ISI [inservice inspection] Interval.
The margins of safety defined in RG 1.14, Revision 1 used in the
analysis are not significantly changed.
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.
Local Public Document Room location: Coastal Region Library, 8619
W. Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida 32629
Attorney for licensee: A. H. Stephens, General Counsel, Florida
Power Corporation, MAC - A5D, P. O. Box 14042, St. Petersburg, Florida
33733
NRC Project Director: David B. Matthews
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 10, 1995
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) for containment systems to
reflect the adoption of the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J,
Option B, and the implementation of a performance-based containment
leak-rate testing program at the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2.
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 of consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical or operational
changes to structures, systems or components. The proposed changes
provide a mechanism within the TS for implementing a performance-
based leakage rate test program which was promulgated by the
revision to 10 CFR 50 to incorporate Option B to Appendix J. The TS
Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) remain unaffected by these
changes. Thus, the safety design basis for the accident mitigation
functions of the primary containment, the airlocks, and the primary
containment isolation valves is maintained. Therefore, these changes
will not increase 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 analyzed.
Revising Surveillance Requirement acceptance criteria and
frequencies does not physically modify the plant and does not modify
the operation of any existing equipment.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety, nor do they affect a safety limit, an LCO,
or the manner in which plant equipment is operated. The NRC letter
dated November 2, 1995, recognizes that changes similar to the
proposed changes are required to implement Option B of 10 CFR 50,
Appendix J. In NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test
Program,'' which forms the basis for the Appendix J revision, the
NRC concludes that adoption of performance-based test intervals for
Appendix J testing will 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.
Local Public Document Room location:Appling County Public Library,
301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia 31513
Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw,
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037
NRC Project Director: Herbert N. Berkow
GPU Nuclear Corporation, Docket No. 50-320, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (TMI-2), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: January 16, 1995
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise TMI-2 Operating License No. DPR-73 by modifying Section 6.5.1.7
of the administrative controls portion of the technical specifications.
The revision would change Section 6.5.1.7 to delete the requirement for
personnel in the internal GPU Nuclear (GPUN) Review and Approval matrix
to render an unreviewed safety question (USQ) determination regarding
(1) proposed changes to unit technical specifications and (2)
investigations of violations of technical specifications. Both of these
activities involve docketed correspondence with the NRC in which the
USQ determination is made and justified. This obviates the need for a
requirement for the licensee to perform and document an internal USQ
[[Page 65680]]
determination. This change would make the TMI-2 Technical
Specifications consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications
for B&W Plants (NUREG 1430).
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:
10 CFR 50.92 provides the criteria which the Commission uses to
perform a no significant hazards consideration. 10 CFR 50.92 states
that an amendment to a facility license involves no significant
hazards if 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 proposed change to the technical specifications is
administrative and does not involve any physical changes to the
facility. No changes are made to operating limits or parameters, nor
to any surveillance activities. Based on this, GPU Nuclear has
concluded that the proposed change does not:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability of
occurrence of the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment is purely administrative and affects only the
review of activities that involve considerable review by the NRC.
This change will not degrade the performance of review for either of
the two activities that are affected. This proposed technical
specification change does not involve changes to hardware
configuration, operation, or testing. Therefore, this change does
not increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
since the change is administrative and no new failure modes are
created.
3. Involve a change in the margin of safety. This change is
administrative in nature; compatible with standard technical
specifications; and does not affect any safety settings, equipment,
or operational parameters.
Based on the above analysis it is concluded that the proposed
changes involve no significant safety hazards considerations as
defined by 10 CFR 50.92.
The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis of the licensee 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.
Local Public Document Room location: Government Publications
Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Walnut Street and Commonwealth
Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw,
Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037
NRC Project Director: Seymour H. Weiss
Illinois Power Company and Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc., Docket
No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: October 27, 1995
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,''
to include the 25% surveillance overrun allowed by Limiting Condition
for Operation (LCO) 3.0.2 into the allowances of the surveillance Notes
for control rod ``notch'' testing per Surveillance Requirement (SR)
3.1.3.2 and SR 3.1.3.3. The proposal also includes a clarification to
the description of TS Table 3.3.3.1-1, ``Post Accident Monitoring
Instrumentation,'' Function 7, to indicate that the Function's
requirements apply to the position indication for only automatic
primary containment isolation valves, rather than all primary
containment isolation valves. Finally, the proposal includes changes to
correct a number of editorial and typographical errors inadvertently
contained in TS 3.3.4.1, ``End of Cycle Recirculation Pump Trip (EOC-
RPT) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment and Drywell
Isolation Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.8.2, ``Reactor Protection System
(RPS) Electric Power Monitoring,'' and TS 3.6.5.2, ``Drywell Air
Lock.''
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 associated with Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) 3.1.3 are being made to make the surveillance
requirement (SR) Notes agree with their original intent. The Notes
were originally intended to allow the testing of control rods to be
tracked as a group, i.e., partially withdrawn and fully withdrawn.
In the event that a control rod(s) has changed from one test group
to another, the Notes were intended to allow performance of the next
surveillance on that control rod(s) to be delayed to coincide with
the next regularly scheduled performance of the test of the new
group. However, these Notes failed to include the 25% surveillance
extension allowances of SR 3.0.2. This proposed change merely adds
the 25% extension to the time allowed by the Notes to make them
agree with the Frequency plus the extension allowance of SR 3.0.2.
The addition of the word ``fully'' to the Note for SR 3.1.3.2 is to
provide for clarification only. These changes are consistent with
changes approved for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) and River
Bend Station and are being proposed for the Clinton Power Station
(CPS) for consistency. The proposed changes do not involve a change
to the control rods or control rod drive system design or operation.
Further, the proposed change does not affect the way in which the
associated control rod test is performed, only the ``triggers'' for
performance of the test are affected. These triggers are being
revised to make them consistent with their original intent. As a
result, the proposed change cannot increase the probability or the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to the description of LCO 3.3.3.1 Function 7
to include ``automatic'' is provided for clarification only. As
described in the Bases for this Function, the requirements for
operability are currently only associated with automatic primary
containment isolation valves (PCIVs). As a result, this change does
not involve a change to the scope of this LCO. In addition, these
changes are consistent with changes approved for GGNS and are being
proposed for CPS for consistency. Since this request does not affect
the design or operation of this equipment, nor does it alter the
scope of this Technical Specification (TS) requirement, this
proposed change cannot increase the probability or the consequences
or any accident previously evaluated.
The remaining proposed changes are purely editorial and do not
affect the design or operation of any equipment or alter the
technical requirements of any TS. As a result, these proposed
changes cannot increase the probability or the consequences of any
accident previously evaluated.
(2) The proposed changes do not affect the design or operation
of any equipment. In addition, the proposed changes do not affect
the manner in which any test is performed or involve a change to any
plant operating mode or configuration. As a result, Illinois Power
has concluded that the proposed changes cannot create the
possibility of an accident not previously evaluated.
(3) The proposed changes to the SRs for LCO 3.1.3 are being made
to make the SR Notes agree with their original intent and thus
permit control rods to be tested as originally intended. The
proposed changes do not involve a change to the control rods or
control rod drive system design or operation. Further, the proposed
change does not affect the way in which this test is performed or
the routine Frequency of performing the test, only the ``triggers''
are affected. Since these triggers are being revised to make them
consistent with their original intent, Illinois Power has determined
that this change does not result in a reduction in the margin of
safety.
The proposed change to the description of LCO 3.3.3.1 Function 7
to include ``automatic'' is provided for clarification only. As
described in the Bases for this Function, the requirements for
operability are
[[Page 65681]]
currently only associated with automatic PCIVs. As a result, this
change does not involve a change to the current scope of this LCO.
Since this request does not affect the design or operation of this
equipment, nor does it alter the scope of this TS requirement, this
proposed change does not result in a reduction in the margin of
safety.
The remaining changes are purely editorial and do not affect the
design or operation of any equipment or alter the technical
requirements of any TS. As a result, these proposed changes do 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
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location: Vespasian Warner Public
Library, 120 West Johnson Street, Clinton, Illinois 61727
Attorney for licensee: Sheldon Zabel, Esq., Schiff, Hardin and
Waite, 7200 Sears Tower, 233 Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606
NRC Project Director: Gail H. Marcus
Illinois Power Company and Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc., Docket
No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: October 27, 1995
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification 5.2.2.e, ``Unit Staff,'' to revise the
requirements for controls on the working hours of unit staff who
perform safety related functions. The proposal would clarify the
approval requirements for deviations from the overtime guidelines and
eliminate the requirement for a monthly review of individual overtime,
consistent with GL 82-12, ``Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours,''
dated June 15, 1982.
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 change to the plant
design or operation. The proposed changes do not affect the level of
approval required for deviations from the overtime guidelines. As
the Technical Specifications will continue to require deviations
from the guidelines for overtime control to be approved and
documented, the proposed changes do not adversely affect the level
of alertness for the unit staff who perform safety-related
functions. The current requirement for the plant manager (or his
designee) to perform a monthly review of individual overtime is an
after the fact review that has not been proven to provide any
significant benefit with respect to the control of individual
overtime. In addition, the proposed changes do not directly affect
the automatic operation of equipment or systems assumed to mitigate
the consequences of previously evaluated accidents. As a result, the
proposed changes do not affect any of the parameters or conditions
that contribute to initiation of an accident previously evaluated,
and thus, the proposed changes cannot increase the probability or
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
(2) The proposed changes do not involve a change to the plant
design or operation. The proposed changes do not affect the level of
approval required for deviations from the overtime guidelines and do
not adversely affect the level of alertness for the unit staff who
perform safety-related functions. As a result, the proposed changes
do not affect any of the parameters or conditions that could
contribute to initiation of an accident, and thus cannot create the
possibility of an accident not previously evaluated.
(3) The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety. As noted previously, the proposed changes do
not change the level of approval required for deviations from the
overtime guidelines. Only the requirement for an after-the-fact
monthly review is proposed to be deleted. To the extent that
personnel alertness may be regarded as a margin of safety, deleting
this requirement will not result in a significant reduction in a
margin of safety since overtime controls consistent with the
guidelines and requirements of GL 82-12 will continue to remain in
place.
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.
Local Public Document Room location: Vespasian Warner Public
Library, 120 West Johnson Street, Clinton, Illinois 61727
Attorney for licensee: Sheldon Zabel, Esq., Schiff, Hardin and
Waite, 7200 Sears Tower, 233 Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606
NRC Project Director: Gail H. Marcus
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County,
Michigan
Date of amendment requests: May 19, 1995, as supplemented October
20, 1995 (AEP:NRC:1213A)
Description of amendment requests: The proposed amendments would
modify the Technical Specification (TS) action statement associated
with the main steam safety valves (MSSVs). The action statement would
reflect different requirements based on operating mode and the power
range neutron flux high setpoint with inoperable MSSVs would be revised
in response to an issue raised in Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory
Letter 94-001. The supplement also requested the addition of an
exemption to TS 4.0.4 in the surveillance requirements for the MSSVs.
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:
Criterion 1
Correction of the setpoint methodology does not represent a
credible accident initiator. The new methodology reduces the
allowable power level setpoints and is conservative compared to the
presently evaluated setpoints. The consequences of any previously
evaluated accident are not adversely affected by this action because
the decrease in the setpoints resulting from the new calculational
methodology will ensure that the MSSVs are capable of relieving the
pressure at the allowable power levels. Based on these
considerations, it is concluded that the changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Correcting the overly restrictive action statements of T/S 3.7.1
does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an
accident. The proposed changes modify existing text to more
accurately reflect the intention of the restrictions imposed by the
action statements. The changes do not create any situation that
would initiate a credible accident sequence.
The proposed 4.0.4 exemption is necessary to make the T/Ss
accurately reflect limitations associated with conduct of the
surveillance in Mode 3. Additionally, the change is needed to
address the fact that unscheduled outages can and do occur and, when
they do, surveillances can expire with no way to correct the
situation until the unit returns to power. Since the purpose of the
4.0.4 exemption is to allow surveillances to be conducted after an
extended period of reactor shutdown, the decay heat to be removed by
the MSSVs will be less than (and therefore conservative compared to)
the conditions experienced when the surveillances are already
allowed by the T/Ss. These allowed conditions include conduct of the
surveillance during power operation or immediately after shutdown.
Therefore, we believe that any increase in the probability of
occurrence or consequences of an accident previously analyzed would
be insignificant.
Criterion 2
The change in Table 3.7-1 reduces the allowable power levels
that can be achieved in the event that one or more main steam safety
valve(s) is inoperable. This change is a result of vendor guidance
to correct an error in the existing methodology used to determine
the setpoints for the power level.
[[Page 65682]]
Changing the methodology used to determine the setpoints, and lowering
the setpoints themselves, do not create a new condition that could
lead to a credible accident. Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The action statements remain in effect to perform the intended
function of protecting the plant's secondary side when the main
steam safety valves are inoperable. They have only been modified to
correct the overly restrictive language that specifies when, in each
mode, specific actions must be taken. Therefore, the proposed change
does not create a new or different type of accident.
Because the proposed 4.0.4 exemption requires neither physical
changes to the plant nor changes to the safety analyses, we believe
that they will not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3
The margin of safety presently provided is not reduced by the
proposed change in the setpoints. The change will correct the
limiting power levels that are to be implemented when MSSVs are
inoperable. This action does not adversely affect the margin that
was previously allocated for the ability of the MSSVs to relieve
secondary side pressure. Based on these considerations, it is
concluded that the changes do not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety.
The margin of safety is also not significantly reduced by the
proposed change to the action statements of the T/S. The proposed
revision clarifies when specific actions are to be taken in response
to inoperable main steam safety valves. The changes do not decrease
the effectiveness of the actions to be taken; therefore, they do not
significantly reduce any margin of safety.
The margin of safety is not adversely affected by the proposed
exemption to T/S 4.0.4, since the surveillance conditions allowed by
the exemption are bounded by the normal surveillance conditions seen
immediately after shutdown or during power operation.
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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration. The
initial application was noticed in the Federal Register on June 21,
1995 (60 FR 32368).
Local Public Document Room location: Maud Preston Palenske Memorial
Library, 500 Market Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085
Attorney for licensee: Gerald Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts
and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037
NRC Project Director: Brian E. Holian, Acting
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County,
Michigan
Date of amendment requests: November 10, 1995 (AEP:NRC:0896X)
(Supersedes application dated June 15, 1995.)
Description of amendment requests: The proposed amendments would
change the 18-month emergency diesel generator (EDG) surveillance test
from a 24-hour run to an 8-hour run and would add voltage and frequency
measurement and power factor monitoring.
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:
Criterion 1
The safety function of the EDGs is to supply AC electrical power
to plant safety systems whenever the preferred AC power supply is
unavailable. Through surveillance requirements, the ability of the
EDGs to meet their load and timing requirements is tested and the
quality of the fuel and the availability of the fuel supply are
monitored. Reduction of the 24 hour run to 8 hours will not reduce
the surveillance effectiveness and will sufficiently exercise the
EDG and its support systems to identify potential conditions that
could lead to performance degradation (See Attachment 4 [of
amendment request]). Further, monthly full-load testing will provide
confidence in diesel reliability and performance capability. Based
on these considerations, it is concluded that the proposed changes
do not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2
The proposed changes do not involve physical changes to the
plant or changes in plant operating configuration. The changes only
involve EDG surveillance test requirements. These changes will not
affect EDG operability and are designed to improve surveillance
effectiveness. Also, paralleling the diesel to the system grid
during normal operations has been performed to fulfill monthly
surveillance requirements when the resistive load banks were not
available.
It is recognized that, during the 1 hour monthly surveillance
test period, the diesel could be exposed to electrical system
transients (e.g., transients induced by inclement weather
conditions) which could cause the paralleled diesel output breaker
to trip open. Such a scenario, although unlikely, is mitigated by
the availability of the alternate EDG which is placed in the auto
start mode prior to the surveillance. In addition, during testing,
an operator is continuously monitoring the diesel control panel and
can, if necessary, reset the affected EDG lockout relays to restore
EDG availability. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed
changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3
Although the duration of the EDG 18 month 24 hour surveillance
test would be reduced, the EDG components will continue to be
sufficiently exercised such that the ability to detect incipient and
degraded conditions will be maintained (See Attachment 4, Figure 2
[of amendment request]). Also, the added review of diesel reactive
loading ensures that test conditions closely match potential
emergency conditions. In addition, the monthly full-load testing
will provide confidence in diesel reliability and performance
capability without impacting diesel operability. During the monthly
test, the impact on plant safety due to potential exposure to
transient grid conditions is considered to be insignificant based on
the likelihood of such transients coincident with the testing and
the mitigating factors discussed in Criterion 2 above.
Based on the above considerations, it is concluded that 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration. This
notice supersedes the staff's notice published in the Federal Register
on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 37096).
Local Public Document Room location: Maud Preston Palenske Memorial
Library, 500 Market Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085
Attorney for licensee: Gerald Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts
and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037
NRC Project Director: Brian E. Holian, Acting
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Docket No. 50-245, Millstone
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: October 25, 1995
Description of amendment request: The amendment request would
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) to relocate the flow-biased
average power range monitor (APRM) scram and rod block setpoint
requirements for reactor operation with excessive core peaking, which
will also include surveillance requirements to verify the setpoints.
The amendment would also delete TS Figure 2.1.2, and any references to
the figure. APRM meter setting adjustments would be changed to allow
setpoint adjustment to be made at power levels less than or equal to
90% of the rated, and the
[[Page 65683]]
requirement that the scram setting adjustment be <10% would="" be="" further="" defined="" as=""><10% of="" the="" rated="" thermal="" power.="" the="" amendment="" would="" incorporate="" several="" editorial="" changes="" and="" renumbered="" pages,="" the="" removal="" of="" blank="" pages,="" a="" revised="" table="" of="" contents,="" and="" a="" modified="" bases="" section="" for="" the="" aprm="" setpoint="" requirements.="" 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="" (shc),="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" involve="" an="" shc="" because="" the="" changes="" would="" not:="" 1.="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" analyzed.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" cause="" the="" aprm="" scram="" and="" rod="" block="" setpoints="" or="" aprm="" meter="" readings="" to="" be="" manipulated="" differently.="" the="" change="" limiting="" the="" scram="" and="" rod="" block="" setting="" adjustments="" to="" less="" than="" 10%="" of="" rated="" thermal="" power="" is="" more="" conservative="" than="" the="" current="" specification="" in="" that="" it="" allows="" the="" aprm="" meter="" indication="" to="" be="" set="" closer="" to="" the="" flow-biased="" scram="" or="" rod="" block="" setpoint.="" there="" are="" no="" other="" changes="" to="" the="" basic="" function="" of="" any="" plant="" equipment.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" to="" technical="" specifications="" will="" not="" decrease="" the="" margin="" to="" the="" fuel="" thermal-mechanical="" design="" limits,="" so="" the="" potential="" for="" any="" fuel="" failure="" from="" the="" lhgr="" [linear="" heat="" generation="" rate]="" transient="" overpower="" condition="" is="" not="" increased.="" therefore,="" the="" consequences="" of="" a="" transient="" overpower="" are="" also="" not="" increased.="" based="" on="" the="" above,="" these="" changes="" will="" 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="" any="" accident="" previously="" analyzed.="" moving="" the="" aprm="" setpoint="" adjustment="" from="" section="" 2="" to="" section="" 3/="" 4.11="" does="" not="" reduce="" or="" eliminate="" any="" requirements.="" the="" requirements="" for="" the="" aprm="" setpoint="" adjustment="" are="" more="" clearly="" defined="" in="" the="" lco="" [limiting="" conditions="" for="" operation]="" and="" surveillance="" requirements="" with="" specific="" applicability="" and="" corrective="" action="" requirements.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" affect="" the="" basic="" function="" of="" any="" plant="" equipment.="" the="" basic="" process="" for="" performing="" the="" aprm="" setpoint="" adjustment="" is="" not="" significantly="" changed,="" so="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" create="" a="" new="" process="" and="" do="" not="" involve="" any="" new="" failure="" that="" would="" cause="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" to="" occur.="" the="" elimination="" of="" redundant="" information="" in="" the="" technical="" specifications="" and="" the="" relocation="" of="" information="" pertinent="" to="" the="" operators="" for="" performing="" the="" aprm="" setdown="" determination="" does="" not="" create="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident.="" 3.="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" the="" margin="" of="" safety.="" allowing="" aprm="" setpoint="" adjustment="" during="" power="" operation="" at="" off-="" rated="" conditions="" improves="" the="" flexibility="" to="" make="" control="" rod="" pattern="" or="" core="" flow="" adjustments,="" but="" will="" still="" preserve="" the="" required="" setdown="" factor="" that="" must="" be="" maintained="" in="" that="" flux="" shape="" and="" power="" level.="" the="" change="" to="" set="" up="" the="" aprm="" meter="" reading="" up="" to="" 10%="" above="" the="" nominal="" power="" indication="" (instead="" of="" setting="" up="" only="" to="" the="" current="" mflpd="" [maximum="" fraction="" of="" limiting="" power="" density]="" percentage)="" allows="" a="" higher="" aprm="" meter="" setting="" to="" be="" made.="" this="" allows="" the="" conservative="" setting,="" but="" eliminates="" frequent="" setting="" changes="" each="" time="" a="" new="" value="" of="" frp/mflpd="" [fraction="" of="" rated="" power]="" is="" calculated="" provided="" the="" aprm="" setting="" remains="" conservatively="" greater="" than="" or="" equal="" to="" mflpd/frp="" multiplied="" by="" percent="" core="" thermal="" power.="" thus,="" the="" margins="" to="" the="" fuel="" thermal="" and="" mechanical="" design="" limits="" are="" not="" reduced.="" the="" fuel="" remains="" adequately="" protected="" from="" failure="" due="" to="" a="" transient="" lhgr="" overpower="" condition.="" there="" is="" no="" reduction="" in="" any="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" time="" requirements="" imposed="" are="" consistent="" with="" the="" current="" fuel="" thermal="" limit="" lco="" actions="" and="" are="" more="" conservative="" than="" sts,="" therefore,="" the="" proposed="" action="" time="" requirement="" provides="" the="" same="" margin="" of="" safety="" as="" currently="" exists="" in="" the="" mp1="" [millstone="" unit="" 1]="" technical="" specifications.="" the="" margins="" to="" the="" fuel="" thermal="" and="" mechanical="" design="" limits="" are="" not="" reduced.="" there="" is="" no="" reduction="" in="" any="" margin="" of="" safety="" and="" the="" fuel="" remains="" adequately="" protected="" from="" failure="" due="" to="" a="" transient="" lhgr="" overpower="" condition.="" 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.="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" learning="" resources="" center,="" three="" rivers="" community-technical="" college,="" 574="" new="" london="" turnpike,="" norwich,="" ct="" 06360.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" lillian="" m.="" cuoco,="" esq.,="" senior="" nuclear="" counsel,="" northeast="" utilities="" service="" company,="" p.o.="" box="" 270,="" hartford,="" ct="" 06141-0270.="" nrc="" project="" director:="" phillip="" f.="" mckee="" northeast="" nuclear="" energy="" company,="" et="" al.,="" docket="" no.="" 50-336,="" millstone="" nuclear="" power="" station,="" unit="" no.="" 2,="" new="" london,="" connecticut="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 20,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" first="" of="" the="" proposed="" changes="" provides="" clarification="" to="" the="" applicability="" statement="" for="" the="" steam="" generator="" blowdown="" monitor="" in="" table="" 3.3-12.="" the="" applicability="" is="" changed="" to="" be="" for="" modes="" 1-4="" only.="" the="" second="" proposed="" change="" involves="" the="" action="" statement="" for="" the="" steam="" generator="" blowdown="" monitor="" in="" table="" 3.3-12,="" action="" 2.="" the="" action="" required="" when="" the="" monitor="" is="" not="" operable="" is="" clarified="" to="" state="" that="" if="" discharges="" are="" suspended,="" no="" sampling="" is="" required.="" the="" last="" proposed="" change="" involves="" the="" applicability="" statement="" for="" the="" condensate="" polishing="" facility="" waste="" neutralizing="" sump="" radiation="" monitor.="" it="" is="" clarified="" to="" state="" that="" the="" monitor="" is="" only="" required="" when="" the="" pathway="" is="" in="" use.="" 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="" (shc),="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" ...="" nneco="" [northeast="" nuclear="" energy="" company]="" concludes="" that="" these="" changes="" do="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" since="" the="" proposed="" changes="" satisfy="" the="" criteria="" in="" 10cfr50.92(c).="" that="" is,="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not:="" 1.="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" clarify="" the="" modes="" and="" conditions="" for="" which="" the="" radiation="" monitors="" are="" utilized,="" as="" well="" as="" the="" required="" actions="" when="" the="" monitors="" are="" not="" operable.="" these="" changes="" are="" administrative="" in="" nature,="" therefore,="" the="" changes="" will="" not="" increase="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" 2.="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" have="" no="" [e]ffect="" on="" the="" ability="" of="" the="" monitors="" to="" perform="" their="" design="" function.="" the="" clarifications="" do="" not="" involve="" any="" physical="" modifications="" to="" any="" equipment,="" structures,="" or="" components.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" have="" no="" impact="" on="" design="" basis="" accidents,="" and="" the="" changes="" will="" not="" modify="" plant="" response="" or="" create="" a="" new="" or="" unanalyzed="" event.="" 3.="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" these="" changes="" do="" not="" have="" any="" impact="" on="" the="" protective="" boundaries="" and,="" therefore,="" have="" no="" impact="" on="" the="" safety="" limits="" for="" these="" boundaries.="" the="" instrumentation="" associated="" with="" these="" changes="" do="" not="" provide="" a="" safety="" function="" and="" only="" serve="" to="" provide="" radiological="" information="" to="" plant="" operators.="" the="" instrumentation="" has="" no="" [e]ffect="" on="" the="" operation="" of="" any="" safety-related="" equipment.="" no="" hardware,="" software,="" or="" setpoint="" changes="" are="" involved="" in="" this="" proposed="" change.="" these="" changes="" provide="" clarification="" of="" modes="" and="" conditions="" for="" which="" the="" radiation="" monitors="" are="" utilized.="" as="" such,="" these="" changes="" have="" no="" impact="" on="" 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.="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" learning="" resources="" center,="" [[page="" 65684]]="" three="" rivers="" community-technical="" college,="" 574="" new="" london="" turnpike,="" norwich,="" ct="" 06360.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" lillian="" m.="" cuoco,="" esq.,="" senior="" nuclear="" counsel,="" northeast="" utilities="" service="" company,="" p.o.="" box="" 270,="" hartford,="" ct="" 06141-0270.="" nrc="" project="" director:="" phillip="" f.="" mckee="" northeast="" nuclear="" energy="" company,="" et="" al.,="" docket="" no.="" 50-336,="" millstone="" nuclear="" power="" station,="" unit="" no.="" 2,="" new="" london,="" connecticut="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 21,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" clarify="" the="" reactor="" containment="" building="" temperature="" as="" ``an="" equilibrium="" liner="" temperature,''="" and="" the="" affected="" bases="" will="" be="" updated="" to="" reflect="" the="" results="" of="" the="" most="" recent="" main="" steam="" line="" break="" (mslb)="" analysis.="" the="" changes="" to="" the="" bases="" also="" identify="" that="" the="" limiting="" event="" affecting="" containment="" temperature="" and="" pressure="" now="" includes="" the="" mslb="" in="" addition="" to="" a="" loss="" of="" coolant="" accident.="" 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="" (shc),="" which="" is="" presented="" below:="" ...="" nneco="" [northeast="" nuclear="" energy="" company]="" concludes="" that="" these="" changes="" do="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" since="" the="" proposed="" change="" satisfies="" the="" criteria="" in="" 10cfr50.92(c).="" that="" is,="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not:="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" these="" changes="" are="" clarifications="" that="" are="" administrative="" in="" nature.="" the="" changes="" only="" incorporate="" the="" revised="" containment="" analysis="" as="" approved="" by="" the="" nrc.="" there="" are="" no="" hardware="" changes="" and="" no="" change="" to="" the="" functioning="" of="" any="" equipment="" which="" could="" affect="" any="" operational="" modes="" or="" accident="" precursors.="" therefore,="" there="" is="" no="" way="" that="" the="" probability="" of="" previously="" evaluated="" accidents="" could="" be="" affected.="" there="" are="" no="" hardware="" modifications="" associated="" with="" these="" changes="" and="" no="" change="" to="" the="" functioning="" of="" any="" equipment="" which="" could="" affect="" radiological="" releases.="" the="" safety="" analysis="" of="" the="" plant="" is="" unaffected="" by="" the="" changes.="" therefore,="" there="" is="" no="" effect="" on="" the="" consequences="" of="" previously="" evaluated="" accidents.="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" these="" changes="" are="" clarifications="" that="" are="" administrative="" only.="" there="" are="" no="" hardware="" changes="" and="" no="" change="" to="" the="" functioning="" of="" any="" equipment="" which="" could="" introduce="" new="" or="" unique="" operational="" modes="" or="" accident="" precursors.="" therefore,="" there="" is="" no="" possibility="" of="" an="" accident="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" type="" than="" previously="" evaluated.="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" these="" changes="" are="" clarifications="" that="" are="" administrative="" in="" nature.="" they="" do="" not="" increase="" or="" decrease="" any="" plant="" operating="" requirements="" or="" limits.="" therefore,="" they="" have="" no="" effect="" on="" any="" safety="" analysis="" and="" no="" impact="" on="" 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.="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" learning="" resources="" center,="" three="" rivers="" community-technical="" college,="" 574="" new="" london="" turnpike,="" norwich,="" ct="" 06360.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" lillian="" m.="" cuoco,="" esq.,="" senior="" nuclear="" counsel,="" northeast="" utilities="" service="" company,="" p.o.="" box="" 270,="" hartford,="" ct="" 06141-0270.="" nrc="" project="" director:="" phillip="" f.="" mckee="" south="" carolina="" electric="" &="" gas="" company="" (sce&g),="" south="" carolina="" public="" service="" authority,="" docket="" no.="" 50-395,="" virgil="" c.="" summer="" nuclear="" station,="" unit="" no.="" 1,="" fairfield="" county,="" south="" carolina="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 14,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" remove="" the="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" for="" motor="" operated="" valves="" with="" thermal="" overload="" protection="" and="" bypass="" devices="" (ts="" 3/4.8.4.2)="" to="" follow="" the="" guidance="" of="" the="" improved="" westinghouse="" standardized="" ts="" (nureg-1431,="" rev.="" 1).="" 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="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" in="" the="" fsar="" [final="" safety="" analysis="" report]="" is="" not="" significantly="" increased.="" the="" removal="" of="" ts="" 3/4.8.4.2="" from="" ts="" in="" no="" way="" impacts="" the="" accident="" analysis="" of="" the="" fsar.="" compliance="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50,="" as="" applies="" to="" regulatory="" guide="" 1.106,="" will="" be="" maintained="" and="" controlled="" through="" plant="" procedures="" with="" changes="" evaluated="" through="" 10="" cfr="" 50.59="" rather="" than="" through="" ts="" amendments.="" therefore,="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" a="" previously="" evaluated="" accident="" has="" not="" been="" increased.="" 2.="" the="" possibility="" of="" an="" accident="" or="" a="" malfunction="" of="" a="" different="" type="" than="" any="" previously="" evaluated="" is="" not="" created.="" the="" proposed="" tscr="" [ts="" change="" request]="" does="" not="" necessitate="" physical="" alteration="" of="" the="" plant="" nor="" changes="" in="" parameters="" governing="" normal="" plant="" operation.="" therefore,="" the="" change="" does="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" or="" malfunction.="" 3.="" the="" margin="" of="" safety="" has="" not="" been="" significantly="" reduced.="" the="" removal="" of="" ts="" 3/4.8.4.2="" and="" table="" 3.8-2="" will="" not="" diminish="" the="" existing="" thermal="" overload="" protection="" and/or="" bypass="" devices="" operability="" and="" testing="" requirements.="" they="" will="" be="" maintained="" and="" controlled="" in="" plant="" procedures,="" and="" changes="" will="" be="" subject="" to="" 10="" cfr="" 50.59="" review.="" therefore,="" the="" margin="" of="" safety="" has="" not="" decreased.="" 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.="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" fairfield="" county="" library,="" 300="" washington="" street,="" winnsboro,="" sc="" 29180="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" randolph="" r.="" mahan,="" south="" carolina="" electric="" &="" gas="" company,="" post="" office="" box="" 764,="" columbia,="" south="" carolina="" 29218="" nrc="" project="" director:="" frederick="" j.="" hebdon="" south="" carolina="" electric="" &="" gas="" company="" (sce&g),="" south="" carolina="" public="" service="" authority,="" docket="" no.="" 50-395,="" virgil="" c.="" summer="" nuclear="" station,="" unit="" no.="" 1,="" fairfield="" county,="" south="" carolina="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 21,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" change="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" 3/4.5.2="" by="" allowing="" a="" one="" time="" extension="" of="" the="" allowable="" outage="" time="" from="" 72="" hours="" to="" 7="" days="" for="" each="" residual="" heat="" removal="" (rhr)="" train.="" the="" one="" time="" extension="" is="" needed="" to="" allow="" maintenance="" and="" modification="" to="" the="" rhr="" system="" while="" the="" plant="" is="" in="" mode="" 1.="" 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="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" is="" not="" significantly="" increased.="" the="" probability="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" in="" the="" fsar="" [final="" safety="" analysis="" report]="" does="" not="" change.="" a="" one="" time="" extension="" to="" increase="" the="" allowed="" outage="" time="" for="" each="" train="" of="" rhr="" from="" 72="" hours="" to="" 7="" days="" affects="" only="" rhr="" train="" availability="" which="" does="" not="" contribute="" to="" the="" probability="" of="" a="" loca="" [loss-of-coolant="" accident].="" the="" proposed="" change="" to="" ts="" 3/4.5.2="" has="" been="" shown="" to="" have="" only="" a="" small="" increase="" in="" core="" damage="" frequency.="" the="" consequences="" of="" a="" [[page="" 65685]]="" loca="" does="" not="" change="" from="" those="" currently="" resulting="" from="" a="" loca="" initiated="" while="" in="" ts="" 3.5.2="" action="" statement="" (a.),="" thus,="" there="" is="" no="" change="" in="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" in="" the="" fsar.="" 2.="" the="" possibility="" of="" an="" accident="" or="" a="" malfunction="" of="" a="" different="" type="" than="" any="" previously="" evaluated="" is="" not="" created.="" the="" proposed="" tscr="" [ts="" change="" request]="" only="" results="" in="" a="" one="" time="" increase="" in="" the="" allowable="" outage="" time="" for="" each="" train="" of="" rhr.="" it="" does="" not="" result="" in="" an="" operational="" condition="" different="" from="" that="" which="" has="" already="" been="" considered="" by="" ts.="" therefore,="" the="" change="" does="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" or="" malfunction.="" 3.="" the="" margin="" of="" safety="" has="" not="" been="" significantly="" reduced.="" the="" effects="" of="" increasing="" the="" allowed="" outage="" time="" on="" the="" calculated="" core="" damage="" frequency="" has="" been="" evaluated="" and="" determined="" to="" be="" small.="" 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.="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" fairfield="" county="" library,="" 300="" washington="" street,="" winnsboro,="" sc="" 29180="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" randolph="" r.="" mahan,="" south="" carolina="" electric="" &="" gas="" company,="" post="" office="" box="" 764,="" columbia,="" south="" carolina="" 29218="" nrc="" project="" director:="" frederick="" j.="" hebdon="" the="" cleveland="" electric="" illuminating="" company,="" centerior="" service="" company,="" duquesne="" light="" company,="" ohio="" edison="" company,="" pennsylvania="" power="" company,="" toledo="" edison="" company,="" docket="" no.="" 50-440,="" perry="" nuclear="" power="" plant,="" unit="" no.="" 1,="" lake="" county,="" ohio="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 22,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" change="" the="" operating="" license="" to="" reflect="" the="" license="" transfer="" for="" part="" of="" ohio="" edison="" company's="" ownership="" interest="" in="" the="" perry="" nuclear="" power="" plant="" (pnpp),="" unit="" no.="" 1="" to="" its="" wholly="" owned="" subsidiary,="" oes="" nuclear="" inc.="" 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.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" to="" the="" pnpp="" operating="" license="" are="" administrative="" and="" have="" no="" effect="" on="" the="" pnpp="" facility,="" programs,="" personnel="" or="" any="" plant="" systems.="" all="" limiting="" conditions="" for="" operation,="" limiting="" safety="" systems="" settings,="" and="" safety="" limits="" specified="" in="" the="" technical="" specifications="" will="" remain="" unchanged.="" this="" change="" meets="" one="" of="" the="" examples="" of="" a="" change="" not="" likely="" to="" involve="" a="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" in="" that="" it="" is="" a="" purely="" administrative="" change.="" 48="" fed.="" reg.="" 14,864="" (1983).="" 2.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" to="" the="" pnpp="" operating="" license="" are="" administrative="" and="" have="" no="" effect="" on="" the="" pnpp="" facility,="" programs,="" personnel="" or="" any="" plant="" systems.="" pnpp's="" design="" and="" design="" bases="" will="" remain="" unchanged="" as="" will="" all="" limiting="" conditions="" for="" operation,="" limiting="" safety="" systems="" settings,="" and="" safety="" limits="" specified="" in="" the="" technical="" specifications.="" this="" change="" meets="" one="" of="" the="" examples="" of="" a="" change="" not="" likely="" to="" involve="" a="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" in="" that="" it="" is="" a="" purely="" administrative="" change.="" 48="" fed.="" reg.="" 14,864="" (1983).="" 3.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" the="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" to="" the="" pnpp="" operating="" license="" are="" administrative="" and="" have="" no="" effect="" on="" the="" pnpp="" facility,="" programs,="" personnel="" or="" any="" plant="" systems.="" all="" limiting="" conditions="" for="" operation,="" limiting="" safety="" systems="" settings,="" and="" safety="" limits="" specified="" in="" the="" technical="" specifications="" will="" remain="" unchanged.="" this="" change="" meets="" one="" of="" the="" examples="" of="" a="" change="" not="" likely="" to="" involve="" a="" significant="" hazards="" consideration="" in="" that="" it="" is="" a="" purely="" an="" administrative="" change.="" 48="" fed.="" reg.="" 14,864="" (1983).="" 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.="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:perry="" public="" library,="" 3753="" main="" street,="" perry,="" ohio="" 44081="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" jay="" silberg,="" esq.,="" shaw,="" pittman,="" potts="" &="" trowbridge,="" 2300="" n="" street,="" nw.,="" washington,="" dc="" 20037="" nrc="" project="" director:="" gail="" h.="" marcus="" virginia="" electric="" and="" power="" company,="" docket="" nos.="" 50-338="" and="" 50-339,="" north="" anna="" power="" station,="" units="" no.="" 1="" and="" no.="" 2,="" louisa="" county,="" virginia="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 20,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" changes="" would="" revise="" the="" technical="" specifications="" (ts)="" for="" the="" north="" anna="" power="" station,="" units="" no.="" 1="" and="" no.="" 2="" (na-1&2).="" specifically,="" the="" change="" would="" permit="" the="" use="" of="" 10="" cfr="" part="" 50,="" appendix="" j,="" option="" b,="" performance-based="" containment="" leakage="" rate="" testing.="" the="" nuclear="" regulatory="" commission="" (nrc)="" has="" amended="" its="" regulations="" to="" provide="" a="" performance-based="" option="" for="" leakage-rate="" testing="" of="" containments.="" this="" testing="" option="" is="" available="" in="" lieu="" of="" compliance="" with="" the="" prescriptive="" requirements="" contained="" in="" appendix="" j="" regulations.="" in="" order="" to="" implement="" the="" performance-based="" leakage-rate="" testing="" option="" the="" ts="" must="" be="" changed="" to="" eliminate="" reference="" to="" the="" prescriptive="" appendix="" j="" requirements.="" therefore,="" the="" licensee="" is="" proposing="" a="" change="" to="" the="" na-1&2="" ts="" to="" eliminate="" the="" current="" prescriptive="" requirements="" for="" leakage="" rate="" testing="" of="" the="" containment="" and="" reference="" option="" b="" to="" 10="" cfr="" 50="" appendix="" j="" and="" nrc="" regulatory="" guide="" 1.163,="" ``performance-based="" containment="" leakage-test="" program.''="" this="" change="" will="" permit="" use="" of="" the="" performance-based="" surveillance="" testing,="" option="" b,="" of="" 10="" cfr="" 50="" appendix="" j.="" 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:="" specifically,="" operation="" of="" north="" anna="" power="" station="" with="" the="" proposed="" change="" will="" not:="" 1.="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" either="" the="" probability="" of="" occurrence="" or="" consequences="" of="" any="" accident="" or="" equipment="" malfunction="" scenario="" which="" is="" important="" to="" safety="" and="" which="" has="" been="" previously="" evaluated="" in="" the="" updated="" final="" safety="" analysis="" report="" (ufsar).="" plant="" systems="" and="" components="" will="" not="" be="" operated="" in="" a="" different="" manner="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" proposed="" technical="" specifications="" change.="" the="" proposed="" change="" permits="" a="" performance-based="" approach="" to="" determining="" the="" leakage-rate="" test="" frequency="" for="" the="" containment="" and="" containment="" penetrations="" (type="" a,="" b,="" and="" c="" tests).="" since="" the="" proposed="" change="" only="" affects="" the="" test="" frequency="" for="" containment="" and="" containment="" penetrations,="" the="" probability="" of="" occurrence="" of="" an="" accident="" is="" not="" affected="" by="" the="" proposed="" changes="" in="" the="" leak-rate="" test="" interval.="" the="" proposed="" change="" increases="" the="" probability="" of="" a="" malfunction="" due="" to="" the="" longer="" intervals="" between="" leakage="" tests.="" it="" has="" been="" estimated="" that="" the="" longer="" test="" intervals="" will="" increase="" the="" overall="" accident="" risk="" to="" the="" public="" by="" approximately="" 0.7%="" and="" 2.2%="" (for="" changes="" in="" the="" frequency="" of="" type="" a="" tests="" and="" type="" b="" and="" c="" tests,="" respectively).="" however,="" this="" increase="" in="" accident="" risk="" has="" been="" judged="" to="" be="" insignificant.="" this="" increase="" has="" been="" reviewed="" and="" judged="" to="" be="" acceptable="" by="" the="" nrc="" as="" documented="" in="" nureg-1493="" and="" the="" recent="" rulemaking="" to="" 10="" cfr="" 50="" appendix="" j.="" the="" limiting="" conditions="" for="" operation="" are="" not="" being="" changed="" for="" the="" containment="" or="" any="" other="" safety="" system.="" the="" containment="" and="" other="" safety="" system="" remain="" operable="" as="" [[page="" 65686]]="" assumed="" in="" the="" accident="" analysis.="" since="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" affect="" the="" limiting="" conditions="" for="" operation="" for="" the="" containment,="" the="" containment="" penetrations,="" or="" the="" other="" safety="" systems,="" the="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" are="" not="" affected="" by="" the="" changes="" in="" test="" frequency.="" 2.="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" type="" of="" accident="" than="" those="" previously="" evaluated="" in="" the="" ufsar.="" implementing="" the="" proposed="" technical="" specifications="" change="" to="" remove="" the="" prescriptive="" testing="" requirements="" and="" permit="" use="" of="" appendix="" j,="" option="" b,="" performance-based="" testing="" of="" containment="" and="" its="" penetrations="" do="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" an="" accident="" of="" a="" different="" type="" than="" was="" previously="" evaluated="" in="" the="" ufsar.="" plant="" systems="" and="" components="" will="" not="" be="" operated="" in="" a="" different="" manner="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" proposed="" technical="" specifications="" change.="" thus,="" the="" proposed="" technical="" specifications="" change="" in="" leakage-rate="" test="" frequency="" does="" not="" introduce="" any="" new="" accident="" precursors="" or="" modes="" of="" operation.="" the="" containment="" and="" containment="" penetrations="" will="" not="" be="" operated="" any="" differently="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" proposed="" change.="" therefore,="" the="" possibility="" for="" an="" accident="" of="" a="" different="" type="" than="" was="" previously="" evaluated="" in="" the="" safety="" analysis="" report="" is="" not="" created="" by="" the="" proposed="" technical="" specifications="" change.="" 3.="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" proposed="" change,="" which="" replace[s]="" the="" present="" prescriptive="" testing="" requirements="" with="" appendix="" j,="" option="" b,="" performance-based="" testing="" of="" containment="" and="" its="" penetrations,="" will="" continue="" to="" ensure="" that="" the="" existing="" accident="" analysis="" assumptions="" are="" maintained.="" the="" containment="" and="" containment="" penetrations="" will="" not="" be="" operated="" or="" tested="" any="" differently.="" only="" the="" leakage="" rate="" test="" frequency="" is="" being="" changed="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" proposed="" change.="" the="" operational="" leakage-rate="" test="" acceptance="" criteria="" and="" the="" operability="" requirements="" are="" not="" being="" changed.="" 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.="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" the="" alderman="" library,="" special="" collections="" department,="" university="" of="" virginia,="" charlottesville,="" virginia="" 22903-2498.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" michael="" w.="" maupin,="" esq.,="" hunton="" and="" williams,="" riverfront="" plaza,="" east="" tower,="" 951="" e.="" byrd="" street,="" richmond,="" virginia="" 23219="" nrc="" project="" director:="" david="" b.="" matthews="" virginia="" electric="" and="" power="" company,="" docket="" nos.="" 50-280="" and="" 50-281,="" surry="" power="" station,="" unit="" nos.="" 1="" and="" 2,="" surry="" county,="" virginia="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 20,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" changes="" to="" the="" surry="" technical="" specifications="" would="" eliminate="" the="" existing="" prescriptive="" testing="" requirements="" for="" leakage="" rate="" testing="" of="" the="" containment="" and="" instead="" reference="" the="" nuclear="" regulatory="" commission="" (nrc)="" regulatory="" guide="" 1.163,''="" performance-based="" containment="" leak-test="" program,''="" which="" would="" permit="" use="" of="" the="" performance-based="" leakage="" rate="" testing,="" option="" b="" of="" 10="" cfr="" part="" 50="" appendix="" j.="" 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:="" specifically,="" operation="" of="" surry="" power="" station="" with="" the="" proposed="" change="" will="" not:="" 1.="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" either="" the="" probability="" of="" occurrence="" or="" consequences="" of="" any="" accident="" or="" equipment="" malfunction="" scenario="" which="" is="" important="" to="" safety="" and="" which="" has="" been="" previously="" evaluated="" in="" the="" updated="" final="" safety="" analysis="" report="" (ufsar).="" plant="" systems="" and="" components="" will="" not="" be="" operated="" in="" a="" different="" manner="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" proposed="" technical="" specifications="" change.="" the="" proposed="" change="" permits="" a="" performance-based="" approach="" to="" determining="" the="" leakage-rate="" test="" frequency="" for="" the="" containment="" and="" containment="" penetrations="" (type="" a,="" b,="" and="" c="" tests).="" there="" are="" no="" plant="" modifications,="" or="" changes="" in="" methods="" of="" operation.="" therefore,="" the="" changes="" in="" testing="" intervals="" for="" the="" containment="" and="" containment="" penetrations="" have="" no="" [e]ffect="" on="" the="" probability="" of="" occurrence="" of="" a="" loca="" [loss-of-coolant="" accident].="" since="" the="" proposed="" change="" only="" affects="" the="" test="" frequency="" for="" containment="" and="" the="" containment="" penetrations,="" and="" the="" as-found="" test="" acceptance="" criteria="" at="" surry="" the="" probability="" of="" occurrence="" and="" the="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" are="" not="" affected="" by="" the="" proposed="" changes="" in="" the="" leak-rate="" test="" interval.="" the="" proposed="" change="" increases="" the="" probability="" of="" a="" malfunction="" of="" equipment="" important="" to="" safety="" due="" to="" the="" longer="" intervals="" between="" leakage="" tests.="" it="" has="" been="" estimated="" that="" the="" longer="" test="" intervals="" will="" increase="" the="" overall="" accident="" risk="" to="" the="" public="" by="" approximately="" 0.7%="" and="" 2.2%="" (for="" changes="" in="" the="" frequency="" of="" type="" a="" tests="" and="" type="" b="" and="" c="" tests,="" respectively).="" however,="" this="" increase="" in="" accident="" risk="" has="" been="" judged="" to="" be="" insignificant.="" this="" increase="" has="" been="" reviewed="" and="" judged="" to="" be="" acceptable="" by="" the="" nrc="" as="" documented="" in="" nureg-1493="" and="" the="" recent="" rulemaking="" to="" 10="" cfr="" 50="" appendix="" j.="" the="" containment="" and="" other="" safety="" system="" remain="" operable="" as="" assumed="" in="" the="" accident="" analysis.="" changing="" the="" as-found="" acceptance="" criterion="" to="" 1.0="" la="" at="" surry="" does="" not="" increase="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident,="" since="" the="" accident="" analysis="" assume[s]="" a="" leakage="" rate="" of="" la="" for="" design="" basis="" accidents.="" the="" as-left="" type="" a="" test="" acceptance="" criterion="" remains="" at="" less="" than="" [or="" equal="" to]="" 0.75="" la.="" since="" the="" proposed="" changes="" do="" not="" affect="" the="" limiting="" conditions="" for="" operation="" for="" the="" containment,="" the="" containment="" penetrations,="" or="" the="" other="" safety="" systems,="" the="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" are="" not="" affected="" by="" the="" changes="" in="" test="" frequency.="" therefore,="" the="" probability="" of="" an="" accident="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" are="" not="" adversely="" affected="" as="" a="" result="" of="" this="" change.="" 2.="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" type="" of="" accident="" than="" those="" previously="" evaluated="" in="" the="" ufsar.="" implementing="" the="" proposed="" technical="" specifications="" change="" to="" remove="" the="" prescriptive="" testing="" requirements="" and="" permit="" use="" of="" appendix="" j,="" option="" b,="" performance-based="" testing="" of="" containment="" and="" its="" penetrations="" does="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" an="" accident="" of="" a="" different="" type="" than="" was="" previously="" evaluated="" in="" the="" ufsar.="" plant="" systems="" and="" components="" will="" not="" be="" operated="" in="" a="" different="" manner="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" proposed="" technical="" specifications="" changes.="" thus,="" the="" proposed="" technical="" specifications="" changes="" in="" leakage-rate="" test="" frequency="" do="" not="" introduce="" any="" new="" accident="" precursors="" or="" modes="" of="" operations.="" the="" containment="" and="" containment="" penetrations="" will="" not="" be="" operated="" any="" differently="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" proposed="" changes.="" therefore,="" the="" possibility="" for="" an="" accident="" of="" a="" different="" type="" than="" was="" previously="" evaluated="" in="" the="" safety="" analysis="" report="" is="" not="" created="" by="" the="" proposed="" technical="" specifications="" change.="" 3.="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" proposed="" technical="" specifications="" change,="" which="" replace[s]="" the="" present="" prescriptive="" testing="" requirements="" with="" appendix="" j,="" option="" b,="" performance-based="" testing="" of="" containment="" and="" its="" penetrations,="" will="" continue="" to="" ensure="" that="" the="" existing="" accident="" analysis="" assumptions="" are="" maintained.="" the="" containment="" and="" containment="" penetrations="" will="" not="" be="" operated="" or="" tested="" any="" differently.="" the="" leakage="" rate="" test="" frequency="" is="" being="" changed="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" proposed="" change.="" changing="" the="" as-found="" acceptance="" criterion="" to="" 1.0="" la="" at="" surry="" does="" not="" increase="" the="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident,="" since="" the="" accident="" analysis="" assume[s]="" a="" leakage="" rate="" of="" la="" for="" design="" basis="" accidents.="" the="" as-left="" type="" a="" test="" acceptance="" criterion="" remains="" at="" less="" than="" [or="" equal="" to]="" 0.75="" la,="" which="" maintains="" the="" operating="" margin.="" the="" operational="" leakage-rate="" test="" acceptance="" criteria="" and="" the="" operability="" requirements="" are="" not="" being="" changed.="" therefore,="" the="" margin="" of="" safety="" as="" defined="" in="" the="" technical="" specifications="" bases="" is="" unaffected.="" 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.="" [[page="" 65687]]="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" swem="" library,="" college="" of="" william="" and="" mary,="" williamsburg,="" virginia="" 23185.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" michael="" w.="" maupin,="" esq.,="" hunton="" and="" williams,="" riverfront="" plaza,="" east="" tower,="" 951="" e.="" byrd="" street,="" richmond,="" virginia="" 23219="" nrc="" project="" director:="" david="" b.="" matthews="" wisconsin="" electric="" power="" company,="" docket="" nos.="" 50-266="" and="" 50-301,="" point="" beach="" nuclear="" power="" plant,="" unit="" nos.="" 1="" and="" 2,="" town="" of="" two="" creeks,="" manitowoc="" county,="" wisconsin="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" october="" 23,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" change="" the="" name="" of="" the="" licensee="" from="" wisconsin="" electric="" power="" company="" to="" wisconsin="" energy="" company.="" 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="" point="" beach="" nuclear="" plant="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" will="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" proposed="" license="" amendment,="" there="" will="" be="" no="" physical="" change="" to="" the="" facilities="" and="" all="" limiting="" conditions="" for="" operations,="" limiting="" safety="" system="" settings,="" and="" safety="" limits="" specified="" in="" the="" technical="" specifications="" will="" remain="" unchanged.="" also,="" the="" facilities'="" quality="" assurance="" program,="" emergency="" plan,="" security="" plan,="" and="" operator="" training="" and="" requalification="" program="" will="" be="" unaffected.="" therefore,="" this="" amendment="" will="" not="" cause="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" 2.="" operation="" of="" the="" point="" beach="" nuclear="" plant="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" will="" not="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" will="" have="" no="" effect="" on="" the="" physical="" configuration="" of="" the="" facilities="" or="" the="" manner="" in="" which="" they="" will="" operate.="" the="" design="" and="" design="" basis="" of="" the="" plants="" will="" remain="" the="" same.="" the="" current="" plant="" safety="" analysis="" will="" therefore="" remain="" complete="" and="" accurate="" in="" addressing="" the="" design="" basis="" events="" and="" in="" analyzing="" plant="" response="" and="" consequences="" for="" the="" facilities.="" the="" limiting="" conditions="" for="" operations,="" limiting="" safety="" system="" settings,="" and="" safety="" limits="" specified="" in="" the="" technical="" specifications="" for="" the="" facilities="" are="" not="" affected="" by="" the="" proposed="" license="" amendment.="" the="" plant="" conditions="" for="" which="" the="" design="" basis="" accident="" analysis="" have="" been="" performed="" will="" remain="" valid.="" therefore,="" the="" proposed="" license="" amendment="" cannot="" create="" the="" possibility="" of="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" 3.="" operation="" of="" the="" point="" beach="" nuclear="" plant="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" will="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" the="" margin="" of="" safety.="" plant="" safety="" margins="" are="" established="" through="" limiting="" conditions="" for="" operation,="" limiting="" safety="" system="" settings,="" and="" safety="" limits="" specified="" in="" the="" technical="" specifications.="" since="" there="" will="" be="" no="" change="" to="" the="" physical="" design="" or="" operation="" of="" the="" plant,="" there="" will="" be="" no="" change="" to="" any="" of="" these="" margins.="" thus,="" the="" proposed="" license="" amendment="" will="" not="" involve="" a="" reduction="" in="" any="" 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.="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" joseph="" p.="" mann="" library,="" 1516="" sixteenth="" street,="" two="" rivers,="" wisconsin="" 54241.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" gerald="" charnoff,="" esq.,="" shaw,="" pittman,="" potts,="" and="" trowbridge,="" 2300="" n="" street,="" nw.,="" washington,="" dc="" 20037.="" nrc="" project="" director:="" gail="" h.="" marcus="" wisconsin="" electric="" power="" company,="" docket="" nos.="" 50-266="" and="" 50-301,="" point="" beach="" nuclear="" power="" plant,="" unit="" nos.="" 1="" and="" 2,="" town="" of="" two="" creeks,="" manitowoc="" county,="" wisconsin="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 17,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" revise="" technical="" specification="" (ts)="" 15.6.3,="" ``facility="" staff="" qualifications.''="" the="" position="" of="" health="" physics="" manager="" would="" be="" renamed="" health="" physicist.="" this="" change="" would="" provide="" additional="" staffing="" flexibility.="" 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="" point="" beach="" nuclear="" plant="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" does="" not="" result="" in="" a="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" separate="" the="" qualifications="" requirements="" of="" the="" technical="" specifications="" from="" the="" health="" physics="" manager,="" while="" requiring="" that="" the="" same="" qualifications="" be="" fulfilled="" by="" a="" designated="" health="" physicist="" position="" within="" the="" organization.="" this="" change="" maintains="" the="" present="" knowledge="" requirements="" of="" the="" pbnp="" staff.="" the="" personnel="" holding="" the="" health="" physics="" qualifications="" are="" not="" considered="" in="" the="" probability="" of="" any="" accident.="" by="" ensuring="" the="" appropriate="" expertise="" remains="" on="" the="" staff="" to="" advise="" management="" on="" issues="" related="" to="" radiological="" safety,="" appropriate="" action="" is="" assured="" during="" analyzed="" events="" to="" assess="" and="" mitigate="" the="" radiological="" consequences.="" therefore,="" this="" change="" does="" not="" affect="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" 2.="" operation="" of="" the="" point="" beach="" nuclear="" plant="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" will="" not="" result="" in="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" change="" separates="" the="" health="" physics="" manager="" qualifications="" from="" the="" position="" while="" maintaining="" the="" requirements="" for="" that="" expertise="" to="" be="" maintained="" within="" the="" organization.="" this="" is="" an="" administrative="" change="" only="" and="" does="" not="" affect="" any="" plant="" structures,="" systems="" and="" components.="" therefore,="" a="" new="" or="" different="" kind="" of="" accident="" from="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated="" cannot="" result.="" 3.="" operation="" of="" the="" point="" beach="" nuclear="" plant="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" will="" not="" result="" in="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" proposed="" changes="" are="" administrative="" only.="" the="" required="" levels="" of="" expertise="" and="" experience="" will="" be="" maintained="" within="" the="" health="" physics="" organization.="" therefore,="" there="" is="" no="" 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.="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" joseph="" p.="" mann="" library,="" 1516="" sixteenth="" street,="" two="" rivers,="" wisconsin="" 54241.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" gerald="" charnoff,="" esq.,="" shaw,="" pittman,="" potts,="" and="" trowbridge,="" 2300="" n="" street,="" nw.,="" washington,="" dc="" 20037.="" nrc="" project="" director:="" gail="" h.="" marcuswolf="" creek="" nuclear="" operating="" corporation,="" docket="" no.="" 50-482,="" wolf="" creek="" generating="" station,="" coffey="" county,="" kansas="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 22,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" amendment="" would="" revise="" technical="" specification="" 3.9.4,="" ``containment="" building="" penetrations,''="" and="" its="" associated="" bases="" section="" to="" allow="" the="" containment="" personnel="" airlock="" doors="" to="" be="" open="" during="" core="" alterations="" and="" movement="" of="" irradiated="" fuel="" in="" containment="" provided="" that="" a="" minimum="" of="" one="" door="" in="" the="" emergency="" airlock="" is="" closed="" and="" one="" door="" in="" the="" personnel="" airlock="" is="" capable="" of="" being="" closed.="" also,="" surveillance="" requirement="" 4.9.4="" would="" be="" revised="" to="" specify="" that="" each="" containment="" penetration="" should="" be="" in="" its="" ``required="" condition,''="" instead="" of="" ``closed/isolated="" condition.''="" [[page="" 65688]]="" 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="" technical="" specification="" 3.9.4="" would="" allow="" the="" containment="" personnel="" airlock="" to="" be="" open="" during="" fuel="" movement="" and="" core="" alterations.="" the="" containment="" personnel="" airlock="" is="" currently="" closed="" during="" fuel="" movement="" and="" core="" alterations="" to="" prevent="" the="" escape="" of="" radioactive="" material="" in="" the="" event="" of="" a="" fuel="" handling="" accident.="" the="" containment="" personnel="" airlock="" is="" not="" an="" initiator="" of="" any="" accident.="" whether="" the="" containment="" personnel="" airlock="" doors="" are="" open="" or="" closed="" during="" fuel="" movement="" and="" core="" alterations="" has="" no="" affect="" on="" the="" probability="" of="" any="" accident="" previously="" evaluated.="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" alter="" assumptions="" previously="" made="" in="" evaluating="" the="" radiological="" consequences="" of="" the="" fuel="" handling="" accident="" inside="" the="" containment="" building.="" the="" proposed="" change="" allows="" for="" the="" containment="" personnel="" airlock="" to="" be="" open="" during="" refueling.="" the="" radiological="" consequences="" described="" in="" this="" change="" are="" bounded="" by="" those="" given="" in="" the="" wolf="" creek="" generating="" station="" safety="" evaluation="" report="" and="" general="" design="" criteria="" 19.="" all="" doses="" for="" the="" proposed="" change="" are="" less="" than="" the="" acceptance="" criteria,="" therefore,="" there="" is="" no="" significant="" increase="" in="" the="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" analyzed.="" the="" proposed="" change="" would="" significantly="" reduce="" the="" dose="" to="" workers="" in="" the="" containment="" in="" the="" event="" of="" a="" fuel="" handling="" accident="" by="" accelerating="" the="" containment="" evacuation="" process.="" the="" proposed="" change="" would="" also="" significantly="" decrease="" the="" wear="" on="" the="" containment="" personnel="" airlock="" doors="" and,="" consequently,="" increase="" the="" reliability="" of="" the="" containment="" personnel="" airlock="" doors="" in="" the="" event="" of="" an="" accident.="" since="" the="" probability="" of="" a="" fuel="" handling="" accident="" is="" unaffected="" by="" the="" airlock="" door="" positions,="" and="" the="" increased="" doses="" do="" not="" exceed="" acceptance="" limits,="" operation="" of="" the="" facility="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" not="" affect="" the="" probability="" or="" consequences="" of="" an="" accident="" previously="" analyzed.="" 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="" affects="" a="" previously="" evaluated="" accident,="" e.g.,="" a="" fuel="" handling="" accident="" inside="" containment.="" the="" existing="" accident="" has="" been="" modified="" to="" account="" for="" the="" containment="" personnel="" airlock="" doors="" being="" opened="" at="" the="" time="" of="" the="" accident.="" it="" does="" not="" represent="" a="" significant="" change="" in="" the="" configuration="" or="" operation="" of="" the="" plant.="" therefore,="" 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.="" 3.="" the="" proposed="" change="" does="" not="" involve="" a="" significant="" reduction="" in="" a="" margin="" of="" safety.="" the="" margin="" of="" safety="" is="" reduced="" when="" the="" offsite="" and="" control="" room="" doses="" exceed="" the="" acceptance="" criteria="" in="" the="" wolf="" creek="" generating="" station="" safety="" evaluation="" report.="" as="" previously="" discussed="" in="" the="" response="" to="" standard="" i,="" the="" offsite="" and="" control="" room="" doses="" are="" below="" the="" acceptance="" criteria.="" therefore,="" operation="" of="" the="" facility="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" 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.="" local="" public="" document="" room="" locations:="" emporia="" state="" university,="" william="" allen="" white="" library,="" 1200="" commercial="" street,="" emporia,="" kansas="" 66801="" and="" washburn="" university="" school="" of="" law="" library,="" topeka,="" kansas="" 66621="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" jay="" silberg,="" esq.,="" shaw,="" pittman,="" potts="" and="" trowbridge,="" 2300="" n="" street,="" n.w.,="" washington,="" d.c.="" 20037="" nrc="" project="" director:="" william="" h.="" bateman="" 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.="" commonwealth="" edison="" company,="" docket="" nos.="" 50-237="" and="" 50-249,="" dresden="" nuclear="" power="" station,="" units="" 2="" and="" 3,="" grundy="" county,="" illinois;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="" 14,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" close="" out="" additional="" open="" items="" identified="" in="" the="" nrc="" staff's="" review="" of="" the="" upgrade="" of="" the="" dresden="" and="" quad="" cities="" technical="" specifications="" (ts)="" to="" the="" standard="" technical="" specifications="" (sts)="" contained="" in="" nureg-="" 0123.="" the="" technical="" specification="" upgrade="" program="" (tsup)="" is="" not="" a="" complete="" adaption="" of="" the="" sts.="" the="" ts="" upgrade="" focuses="" on="" (1)="" integrating="" additional="" information="" such="" as="" equipment="" operability="" requirements="" during="" shutdown="" conditions,="" (2)="" clarifying="" requirements="" such="" as="" limiting="" conditions="" for="" operation="" and="" action="" statements="" utilizing="" sts="" terminology,="" (3)="" deleting="" superseded="" requirements="" and="" modifications="" to="" the="" ts="" based="" on="" the="" licensee's="" responses="" to="" generic="" letter="" (gl),="" and="" (4)="" relocating="" specific="" items="" to="" more="" appropriate="" ts="" locations.="" the="" november="" 14,="" 1995,="" application="" proposed="" to="" close="" out="" all="" open="" items="" identified="" during="" the="" nrc's="" review="" as="" noted="" in="" previous="" nrc="" staff="" safety="" evaluations="" for="" previously="" provided="" submittals="" regarding="" the="" tsup="" project.="" date="" of="" publication="" of="" individual="" notice="" in="" federal="" register:="" november="" 29,1995="" (60="" fr="" 61272).="" expiration="" date="" of="" individual="" notice:="" december="" 28,="" 1995="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" for="" dresden,="" the="" morris="" area="" public="" library="" district,="" 604="" liberty="" street,="" morris,="" illinois;="" and="" for="" quad="" cities="" station,="" the="" dixon="" public="" library,="" 221="" hennepin="" avenue,="" dixon,="" illinois.="" commonwealth="" edison="" company,="" docket="" nos.="" 50-237="" and="" 50-249,="" dresden="" nuclear="" power="" station,="" units="" 2="" and="" 3,="" grundy="" county,="" illinois;docket="" nos.="" 50-373="" and="" 50-374,="" lasalle="" county="" station,="" units="" 1="" and="" 2,="" lasalle="" county,="" illinois;="" 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="" 14,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" would="" change="" the="" technical="" specifications="" of="" these="" plants="" to="" incorporate="" 10="" cfr="" part="" 50,="" appendix="" j,="" ``primary="" reactor="" containment="" leakage="" testing="" for="" water-cooled="" power="" reactors'',="" option="" b.="" date="" of="" publication="" of="" individual="" notice="" in="" federal="" register:="" december="" 7,="" 1995="" (60="" fr="" 62896)="" expiration="" date="" of="" individual="" notice:="" january="" 8,="" 1996="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" for="" dresden="" station,="" morris="" area="" public="" library="" district,="" 604="" liberty="" street,="" morris,="" illinois;="" for="" lasalle="" county="" station,="" jacobs="" memorial="" library,="" illinois="" valley="" community="" [[page="" 65689]]="" college,="" oglesby,="" illinois;="" and="" for="" quad="" cities="" station,="" dixon="" public="" library,="" 221="" hennepin="" avenue,="" dixon,="" illinois.="" connecticut="" yankee="" atomic="" power="" company,="" docket="" no.="" 50-213,="" haddam="" neck="" plant,="" middlesex="" county,="" connecticut="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" november="" 14,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" notice="" relates="" to="" your="" november="" 14,="" 1995,="" application="" to="" amend="" the="" technical="" specifications="" to="" provide="" a="" one-time="" exception="" to="" the="" technical="" specification="" 3.9.12,="" ``fuel="" building="" storage="" air="" cleanup="" system,''="" to="" allow="" the="" fuel="" storage="" building="" air="" cleanup="" system="" to="" be="" inoperable="" during="" intervals="" in="" which="" new="" fuel="" rack="" modules="" will="" be="" moved="" into="" and="" old="" fuel="" modules="" will="" be="" moved="" out="" of="" the="" fuel="" storage="" building.="" date="" of="" pulbication="" of="" individual="" notice="" in="" federal="" register:="" november="" 28,="" 1995="" (60="" fr="" 58688)="" expiration="" date="" of="" individual="" notice:="" december="" 28,="" 1995="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" russell="" library,="" 123="" broad="" street,="" middletown,="" ct="" 06457.="" attorney="" for="" licensee:="" lillian="" m.="" cuoco,="" esq.,="" senior="" nuclear="" counsel,="" northeast="" utilities="" service="" company,="" p.o.="" box="" 270,="" hartford,="" ct="" 06141-0270.="" nrc="" project="" director:="" phillip="" f.="" mckee="" duke="" power="" company,="" et="" al.,="" docket="" nos.="" 50-413="" and="" 50-414,="" catawba="" nuclear="" station,="" units="" 1="" and="" 2,="" york="" county,="" south="" carolina="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" january="" 12,="" 1995,="" as="" supplemented="" by="" letter="" dated="" june="" 29,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" would="" modify="" portions="" of="" technical="" specification="" section="" 6.0,="" ``administrative="" controls.''="" date="" of="" publication="" of="" individual="" notice="" in="" federal="" register:="" november="" 24,="" 1995,="" (60="" fr="" 58109)="" expiration="" date="" of="" individual="" notice:="" december="" 26,="" 1995="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" york="" county="" library,="" 138="" east="" black="" street,="" rock="" hill,="" south="" carolina="" 29730="" duke="" power="" company,="" et="" al.,="" docket="" nos.="" 50-413="" and="" 50-414,="" catawba="" nuclear="" station,="" units="" 1="" and="" 2,="" york="" county,="" south="" carolina="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" september="" 5,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" would="" revise="" the="" updated="" final="" safety="" analysis="" report.="" date="" of="" publication="" of="" individual="" notice="" in="" federal="" register:="" november="" 28,="" 1995="" (60="" fr="" 58690)="" expiration="" date="" of="" individual="" notice:="" december="" 28,="" 1995="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" york="" county="" library,="" 138="" east="" black="" street,="" rock="" hill,="" south="" carolina="" 29730="" niagara="" mohawk="" power="" corporation,="" docket="" nos.="" 50-220="" and="" 50-410,="" nine="" mile="" point="" nuclear="" station,="" unit="" nos.="" 1="" and="" 2,="" oswego="" county,="" new="" york="" date="" of="" amendments="" request:="" october="" 25,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendments="" request:="" the="" proposed="" amendments="" would="" change="" position="" titles="" and="" reassign="" responsibilites="" at="" the="" upper="" management="" level="" to="" reflect="" a="" restructuring="" of="" niagara="" mohawk's="" upper="" management="" organization.="" date="" of="" publication="" of="" individual="" notice="" in="" federal="" register:="" november="" 16,="" 1995="" (60="" fr="" 57605)="" expiration="" date="" of="" individual="" notice:="" december="" 18,="" 1995="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" reference="" and="" documents="" department,="" penfield="" library,="" state="" university="" of="" new="" york,="" oswego,="" new="" york="" 13126.="" northeast="" nuclear="" energy="" company,="" docket="" no.="" 50-245,="" millstone="" nuclear="" power="" station,="" unit="" 1,="" new="" london="" county,="" connecticut="" date="" of="" amendment="" request:="" october="" 3,="" 1995="" description="" of="" amendment="" request:="" the="" notice="" relates="" to="" your="" october="" 3,="" 1995,="" application="" to="" amend="" the="" technical="" specifications="" to="" remove="" the="" limiting="" condition="" for="" operation="" (lco)="" and="" surveillance="" requirements="" for="" the="" loss-of-normal="" power="" (lnp)="" trip="" function="" from="" tables="" 3.2.2="" and="" 4.2.1="" and="" insert="" new="" lco="" 3.2.f="" and="" surveillance="" requirement="" 4.2.f.="" in="" addition,="" the="" proposed="" amendment="" will="" add="" a="" new="" table="" to="" specify="" the="" required="" lnp="" instrumentation="" for="" each="" bus,="" will="" update="" the="" table="" of="" contents,="" will="" make="" some="" editorial="" changes,="" and="" will="" revise="" the="" associated="" bases="" section.="" date="" of="" publication="" of="" individual="" notice="" in="" federal="" register:="" december="" 4,="" 1995="" (60="" fr="" 62111).="" expiration="" date="" of="" individual="" notice:="" january="" 3,="" 1996="" local="" public="" document="" room="" location:="" learning="" resources="" center,="" three="" rivers="" community-technical="" college,="" 574="" new="" london="" turnpike,="" norwich,="" ct="" 06360.="" 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="" at="" the="" local="" public="" document="" rooms="" for="" the="" particular="" facilities="" involved.="" arizona="" public="" service="" company,="" et="" al.,="" docket="" nos.="" stn="" 50-528,="" stn="" 50-529,="" and="" stn="" 50-530,="" palo="" verde="" nuclear="" generating="" station,="" units="" 1,="" 2,="" and="" 3,="" maricopa="" county,="" arizona="" date="" of="" application="" for="" amendments:="" july="" 3,="" 1995="" brief="" description="" of="" amendments:="" the="" amendment="" temporarily="" adds="" new="" action="" statements="" 3.8.1.1.f="" and="" 3.8.1.1.g="" to="" technical="" specification="" 3.8.1.1,="" ``a.c.="" sources="" -="" operating,''="" to="" provide="" a="" method="" of="" responding="" to="" sustained="" degraded="" voltage.="" also,="" bases="" 3/4.8.1,="" 3/4.8.2,="" and="" 3/4.8.3="">A.C. Sources,'' ``D.C. Sources,'' and ``Onsite
Distribution
[[Page 65690]]
Systems,'' respectively) are being revised to provide guidance on how
and why degraded offsite power voltage and the number of startup
transformers in service affect compliance to GDC 17 and to give the
basis for the additional action statements.
Date of issuance: November 28, 1995
Effective date: November 28, 1995
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1 - Amendment No. 102; Unit 2 - Amendment No.
90; Unit 3 - Amendment No. 73
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The
amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 1995 (60 FR
39431) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 1995.No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location:Phoenix Public Library, 12 East
McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station,
Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: August 30, 1994, as
supplemented August 4, 1995.
Brief description of amendments: This application upgrades the
current custom Technical Specifications (TS) for Dresden and Quad
Cities to the Standard Technical Specifications contained in NUREG-
0123, ``Standard Technical Specification General Electric Plants BWR/
4.'' This application upgrades only Section 3/4.2,
``Instrumentation.''Date of issuance: November 20, 1995
Effective date: Immediately, to be implemented no later than June
30, 1996.
Amendment Nos.: 142, 136, 164, and 160
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, DPR-29 and DPR-30.
The amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 30, 1995 (60 FR
45177) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 20, 1995.No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: for Dresden, Morris Area
Public Library District, 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois 60450;
for Quad Cities, Dixon Public Library, 221 Hennepin Avenue, Dixon,
Illinois 61021.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, IllinoisDocket
Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1
and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: September 17, 1993, as
supplemented July 20, 1995.
Brief description of amendments: This application upgrades the
current custom Technical Specifications (TS) for Dresden and Quad
Cities to the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) contained in
NUREG-0123, ``Standard Technical Specification General Electric Plants
BWR/4.'' This application upgrades only Section 3/4.7, ``Containment
Systems.''
Date of issuance: November 27, 1995
Effective date: Immediately, to be implemented no later than June
30, 1996, for Dresden Station and June 30, 1996, for Quad Cities
Station.
Amendment Nos.: 143, 137, 165, 161
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, DPR-29 and DPR-30:
The amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 1995 (60 FR
39433) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 27, 1995.No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: for Dresden, Morris Area
Public Library District, 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois 60450;
for Quad Cities, Dixon Public Library, 221 Hennepin Avenue, Dixon,
Illinois 61021.
Duke Power Company, 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: January 12, 1995, as
supplemented by letter
dated June 29, 1995
Brief description of amendments: The amendments would revise and
clarify portions of Technical Specification Section 6.0,
``Administrative Controls.''
Date of Issuance: December 1, 1995
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
30 days
Amendment Nos.: 211, 211, and 208
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: The
amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 15, 1995 (60 FR
14020) The June 29, 1995, letter provided clarifying information that
did not change the scope of the January 12, 1995, application and the
initial proposed no signficant hazards consideration determination. The
Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 1, 1995No significant hazards
consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: Oconee County Library, 501
West South Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina 29691
Duke Power Company, 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: September 1, 1995, as
supplemented by letter dated November 15, 1995
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 6.9.2 to include references to updated or recently
approved mathodologies used to calculate cycle-specific limits
contained in the Core Operating Limits Report. The subject references
have previously been reviewed and approved by the NRC staff.
Date of Issuance: December 4, 1995
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
30 days
Amendment Nos.: 212, 212, 209
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: The
amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 11, 1995 (60 FR
52928) The November 15, 1995, letter provided clarifying information
that did not change the scope of the September 1, 1995, application and
the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 4, 1995.No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location:Oconee County Library, 501 West
South Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina 29691
[[Page 65691]]
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 26, 1995, as supplemented
by letter dated October 4, 1995
Brief description of amendments: These amendments concern revising
certain surveillance intervals and allowable outage times for the RPS
and ESFAS equipment.
Date of issuance: November 29, 1995
Effective date: November 29, 1995Amendment Nos. 179 and 173Facility
Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: Amendments revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 25, 1995 (60 FR
54720) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 1995 No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location:Florida International
University, University Park, Miami, Florida 33199.
GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile
Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: May 24, 1995, as supplemented
July 24, 1995
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specifications to extend the test interval for the source range neutron
flux instrumentation from 7 days prior to startup to 6 months prior to
startup.
Date of Issuance: November 24, 1995
Effective date: As of its date of issuance, to be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 199
Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 21, 1995 (60 FR
32365) The July 24, 1995, letter provided clarifying information that
did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of
this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 24,
1995.No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location: Law/Government Publications
Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, (REGIONAL DEPOSITORY) Walnut
Street and Commonwealth Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, PA 17105.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: June 14, 1993, supplemented April 12,
1994
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical
specifications (TSs) to include wording consistent with 10 CFR Part 20,
and to deleted TSs governing miscellaneous radioactive material sealed
sources.
Date of issuance: November 28, 1995
Effective date: November 28, 1995
Amendment No.: 174
Facility Operating License No. DPR-46. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 1, 1993 (58
FR 46237) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 1995.No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location:Auburn Public Library, 118 15th
Street, Auburn, NE 68305.
North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, Docket No. 50-443,
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: July 24, 1995, as supplemented by letter
dated October 30, 1995.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revises the
Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) relating to reactor coolant
system leakage. Specifically, the amendment deletes Table 3.4-1,
``Reactor Coolant System Pressure Isolation Valves'' from the Seabrook
Station, Unit No. 1 TS section 3.4.6.2. Also, reference to Table 3.4-1
is deleted from Limiting Condition for Operation 3.4.6.2 f and from
Surveillance Requirement 4.4.6.2.2. The information contained in Table
3.4-1 is to be relocated to the Technical Requirements Manual.
Additionally, a footnote providing certain exceptions from the
requirements of SR 4.4.6.2.2d for the RHR Pump A and RHR Pump B Suction
Isolation Valves previously located on Table 3.4-1 is relocated as a
footnote to SR 4.4.6.2.2d.
Date of issuance: November 28, 1995
Effective date: As of its date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 44
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 30, 1995 (60 FR
45180). The licensee's letter dated October 30, 1995, provided a minor
revision to the application that was within the scope of the original
notice and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination. The October 30, 1995, letter also
contained a request for an additional change that will be addressed
separately.The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 1995.No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location:Exeter Public Library, Founders
Park, Exeter, NH 03833.
North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, Docket No. 50-443,
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: September 20, 1995
Description of amendment request: The amendment modifies the
Appendix A Technical Specifications for the Engineered Safety Features
Actuation System Instrumentation. Specifically, the amendment revises
the Seabrook Station Technical Specifications to relocate Functional
Unit 6.b, ``Feedwater Isolation - Low RCS Tavg Coincident with a
Reactor Trip'' from Technical Specification 3.3.2. ``Engineered Safety
Features Actuation System Instrumentation'' to the Technical
Requirements Manual which is a licensee controlled document.
Date of issuance: November 29, 1995
Effective date: As of its date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 45
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 24, 1995 (60 FR
54524). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 1995.No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location:Exeter Public Library, Founders
Park, Exeter, NH 03833.
North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, Docket No. 50-443,
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: June 7, 1995.
Description of amendment request: The amendment increases the
temperature limit, as specified by the
[[Page 65692]]
footnotes to Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.4.7 and
to Table 3.4-2, above which reactor coolant sampling and analysis for
dissolved oxygen is required and dissolved oxygen limits apply.
Date of issuance: November 29, 1995
Effective date: November 29, 1995
Amendment No.: 46
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 19, 1995 (60 FR
37098). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 1995.No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location:Exeter Public Library, Founders
Park, Exeter, NH 03833.
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al., Docket No. 50-423,
MillstoneNuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County,
Connecticut
Date of application for amendment: June 8, 1995
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 4.5.1.c and deletes Technical Specification (TS) 3/
4.8.4.3, ``AC Circuits Inside Containment.'' The changes to SR 4.5.1.c
clarify the requirements for securing the safety injection accumulator
isolation valve breakers (3SIL*MV8808A, B, C, and D) in the tripped
position for the applicable modes. The amendment also deletes TS 3/
4.8.4.3 since reasonable assurance is provided to protect the
electrical penetrations and penetration conductors against an
overcurrent condition and single failure of a circuit breaker.
Date of issuance: November 29, 1995
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 121
Facility Operating License No. NPF-49. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 1995 (60 FR
39444) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 1995.No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location:Learning Resources Center,
Three Rivers Community-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike,
Norwich, CT 06360.
Philadelphia Electric Company, Docket No. 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: June 23, 1995
Brief description of amendment: This amendment involves a one-time
change affecting the Allowed Outage Time (AOT) for the Emergency
Service Water (ESW) system, Residual Heat Removal Service Water (RHRSW)
System, the Suppression Pool Cooling, the Suppression Pool Spray, and
Low Pressure Coolant Injection modes of the Residual Heat Removal
System, and Core Spray System to be extended from 3 and 7 days to 14
days during the Unit 2 refueling outage scheduled to begin in January
1996. This proposed extended AOT allows adequate time to install
isolation valves and cross-ties on the ESW and RHRSW Systems to
facilitate future inspections or maintenance.
Date of issuance: November 30, 1995
Effective date: November 30, 1995
Amendment No. 70
Facility Operating License No. NPF-85. This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 1995 (60 FR
39448) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 1995No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location:Pottstown Public Library, 500
High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.
Power Authority of The State of New York, Docket No. 50-286, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York
Date of application for amendment: March 3, 1995, as supplemented
April 12, 1995, and November 20, 1995.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the TS to
extend the calibration frequency for the following:
(1) Containment water level monitor instrumentation (specified in
TS Table 4.1-1)
(2) Containment building ambient temperature sensors (specified in
TS Table 4.1-1)
(3) Seismic monitoring instrumentation (specified in TS Table 4.10-
2)
In addition, the amendment added a new surveillance requirement to
TS Table 4.1-1 for testing the core exit thermocouples.
These changes allow operation on a 24-month fuel cycle and follow
the guidance provided in Generic letter 91-04, ``Changes in Technical
Specification Surveillance Intervals to Accommodate a 24-Month Fuel
Cycle,'' as applicable.
Date of issuance: December 1, 1995
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
30 days.
Amendment No.: 164
Facility Operating License No. DPR-64: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 1995 (60 FR
24917) The April 12 and November 20, 1995, letters provided clarifying
information that did not change the initial proposed no significant
hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the
amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 1, 1995.No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location:White Plains Public Library,
100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York 10610.
Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Docket No. 50-354, Hope
Creek Generating Station, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: July 27, 1995
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the Technical
Specifications to incorporate updated pressure vs. temperature
operating limit curves.
Date of issuance: November 28, 1995
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
60 days
Amendment No.: 88
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 13, 1995 (60
FR 47624) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 1995. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location:Pennsville Public Library, 190
S. Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070
Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Docket No. 50, Hope Creek
Generating Station, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: March 31, 1994, supplemented by
letters dated August 29, and October 16, 1995.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment changes Technical
Specification (TS) 3.5.1, ``ECCS -
[[Page 65693]]
Operating,'' and associated Bases, to establish a new allowed out-of-
service time. Action c.2 for TS 3.5.1 allows any one Low Pressure
Coolant Injection subsystem, or one Core Spray subsystem, to be
inoperable in addition to an inoperable High Pressure Coolant Injection
system, for 72 hours.
Date of issuance: November 30, 1995
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 89
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 8, 1994 (59 FR
29631).The supplemental letters did not change the NRC staff's proposed
no significant hazards consideration determination.The Commission's
related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation
dated November 30, 1995.No significant hazards consideration comments
received: No
Local Public Document Room location:Pennsville Public Library, 190
S. Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Centerior Service
Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania
Power Company, Toledo Edison Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: March 24, June 9, and June 30,
1995
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications to allow a one-time extension for the performance of
certain Surveillance Requirements (SRs). Affected SRs include
penetration leak rate testing, valve operability testing, instrument
calibration, response time testing, and logic system functional tests.
The proposed changes are to support refueling outage 5 scheduled to
begin no later than February 15, 1996.
Date of issuance: November 29, 1995
Effective date: November 29, 1995
Amendment No. 75
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 1995 (60 FR
24919) and August 16, 1995 (60 FR 42612)The Commission's related
evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
November 29, 1995. No significant hazards consideration comments
received: No
Local Public Document Room location:Perry Public Library, 3753 Main
Street, Perry, Ohio 44081
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Centerior Service
Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania
Power Company, Toledo Edison Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: October 21, 1994
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification 3/4.6.1.2, ``Primary Containment Leakage,'' and its
associated Bases to reflect the partial exemptions to the requirements
of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Sections III.A.5(b)(2), III.B.3,
III.C.3, III.A.1(d), III.D.1(a), and III.D.3 that were granted by the
NRC on December 4, 1995.
Date of issuance: December 8, 1995
Effective date: ]December 8, 1995
Amendment No.: 76
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 16, 1995 (60 FR
42611) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 1995.No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location: Perry Public Library, 3753
Main Street, Perry, Ohio 44081
Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company, and The Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: July 28, 1995
Brief description of amendment: The amendment clarifies the
limiting condition for operation for TS 3.8.1.1 and 3.8.1.2 from
``independent'' circuit to ``qualified'' circuit; explains in the Bases
the requirements for operability of an offsite circuit; deletes the
STAGGERED TEST BASIS scheduling requirement to perform emergency diesel
generatorsurveillances; explains in the Bases an acceptable method for
verification of Emergency Diesel Generator speed for surveillance
requirements (SR) 4.8.1.1.2.a.4 and 4.8.1.1.2.c.4; removes a
surveillance test extension that has expired for SR 4.8.1.1.1.b; adds
an exception for SR 4.8.1.1.2.c.5 and 4.8.1.1.2.c.7 to SR 4.8.1.2; and
revises Bases 3.0.5 to reflect the clarification from ``independent''
circuit to ``qualified'' circuit.
Date of issuance: December 8, 1995
Effective date: December 8, 1995
Amendment No.: 203
Facility Operating License No. NPF-3. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 8, 1995 (60 FR
56370) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 1995.No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location:University of Toledo, William
Carlson Library, Government Documents Collection, 2801 West Bancroft
Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43606.
Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company, and The Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: October 2, 1995
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specification (TS) Section 5.0, ``Design Features,'' by adding a site
location description, removing site area maps, removing containment and
reactor coolant system design parameters, removing the description of
the meteorological tower location, removing component cyclic or
transient limits, and revising the fuel assembly description to include
the use of ZIRLO clad fuel rods.
Date of issuance: December 8, 1995
Effective date: December 8, 1995
Amendment No.: 204
Facility Operating License No. NPF-3. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 8, 1995 (60 FR
56371) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 1995.No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No
Local Public Document Room location:University of Toledo, William
Carlson Library, Government Documents Collection, 2801 West Bancroft
Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43606.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment: June 23, 1995
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
[[Page 65694]]
Specification (TS) 4.1.3.1.2, 4.4.6.2.2.b, 4.4.3.2, 4.6.2.1.d, 4.6.4.2,
and Table 4.3-3 in accordance with guidance provided in NRC Generic
Letter (GL) 93-05, ``Line Item Technical Specification Improvements to
Reduce Surveillance Requirements for Testing During Power Operations.''
Additionally, the amendment revises TS 4.1.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2, 3/4.1.3.1
and the associated Bases to implement portions of NUREG-1431,
``Standard Technical Specifications - Westinghouse Plants.''
Date of issuance: December 7, 1995
Effective date: December 7, 1995
Amendment No.: 105
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30. The amendment revises the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 30, 1995 (60 FR
45187). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 7, 1995.No significant
hazards consideration comments received: No.
Local Public Document Room location:Callaway County Public Library,
710 Court Street, Fulton, Missouri 65251.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of December 1995.For
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Steven A. Varga,
Director, Division of Reactor Projects - I/II, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation
[Doc. 95-30755 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-F
