Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

Federal RegisterApr 8, 1998

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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 March 16, 1998, through March 27, 1998. The

last biweekly notice was published on March 25, 1998.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility

Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following

amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation

of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)

involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;

or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis

for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown

below.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances

change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely

way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility,

the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of

the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that

the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public and State comments received

before action is taken. Should the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance and provide for

opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that

the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of Administration Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to

Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of

written comments received may be 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 May 8, 1998, 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

[[Page 17220]]

following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the

Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of

the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the

proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition

should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of

the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person

who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of

the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference

scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy

the specificity requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference

scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to

the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions

which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must

consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be

raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a

brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the

contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the

contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references

to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is

aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those

facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information

to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material

issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within

the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be

one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A

petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be

permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,

subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,

and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-

examine witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the amendment request involves

no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the

amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the

request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance

of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place

before the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must

be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington DC,

by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the

Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended

petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for a hearing will

not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the

presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the

petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of

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.

Boston Edison Company, Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power

Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

Date of amendment request: February 11, 1998.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would

modify the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) Updated Final Safety

Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 10.7, Salt Service Water System, by

identifying that certain single active failures do exist that could

leave the Salt Service Water (SSW) system in a configuration with one

SSW pump serving both SSW trains through open crossover (division)

valves for the first 10 minutes of an 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, which is presented below:

1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase

in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Operation with one (1) SSW pump supplying two (2) SSW trains is not

an accident or transient precursor and does not prevent the [Reactor

Building Closed Cooling Water] RBCCW system from providing adequate

cooling during an accident. Core cooling requires no SSW for the first

ten minutes, and no containment cooling is assumed for the first ten

minutes. Pump testing has proved no SSW pump damage will result from

this configuration so there will be no effect on the containment

cooling function. The current licensing basis includes operator action

after ten minutes to align the SSW system to achieve containment

cooling. This amendment does not affect operator action after ten

minutes since pump and valve manipulations are already required to

align containment cooling. Therefore, the changes do not involve a

significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The SSW system operating modes are not accident precursors. They

cannot influence the types of accidents that can occur. The SSW pumps

can withstand operation under the full range of conditions and for the

time periods considered under a one pump, two train system

configuration with no adverse effects. The SSW system is properly

designed as a common header arrangement with five (5) pumps in which

any combination of one to five pumps may operate without damaging

effects.

3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction

in the margin of safety.

Operation with one (1) SSW pump supplying two (2) SSW trains does

not impact the ability to provide adequate core or containment cooling

during an accident. Although SSW system flow will be diminished during

the first ten minutes of the accident, no system flow at all is needed

at that time. The current licensing basis credits operator action after

ten minutes to align the [Residual Heat Removal] RHR, RBCCW, and SSW

systems for containment cooling.

[[Page 17221]]

Operators are expected to isolate the SSW loops or start additional SSW

pumps as necessary given the existing specific conditions.

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: Plymouth Public Library, 11

North Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360.

Attorney for licensee: W. S. Stowe, Esquire, Boston Edison Company,

800 Boylston Street, 36th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02199.

NRC Project Director: Cecil O. Thomas.

Boston Edison Company, Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power

Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

Date of amendment request: February 20, 1998.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would

change the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Technical Specification (TS)

3/4.5.B and its Bases to incorporate the ultimate heat sink (UHS)

temperature of 75 deg.F, as required by Amendment No. 173. The

introduction of a UHS temperature restriction requires new

specifications, actions, and surveillances for the salt service water

system.

The amendment would also replace existing Specification 3.5.B

``Containment Cooling System'' with new Specification 3/4.5.B.1

``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Suppression Pool Cooling,'' 3/4.5.B.2

``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Containment Spray,'' 3/4.5.B.3 ``Reactor

Building Closed Cooling Water (RBCCW) System,'' and 3/4.5.B.4 ``Salt

Service Water (SSW) System and Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS).'' The proposed

new subsections will more clearly define the various subsystems that

comprise the containment cooling system and the operating states in

which they are applicable. The proposed changes also provide clarity

with respect to the application of limiting conditions of operation

(LCOs), actions, completion times, and surveillances for the

containment cooling subsystems.

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?

Operation of PNPS in accordance with the proposed change will not

involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated because of the following:

Administrative Changes

These proposed changes (editorial rewording, reformatting,

repagination, and renumbering) are made to restructure the section,

accounting for the new specifications replacing Specification 3/4.5.B.

These proposed administrative changes do not alter any existing

requirements.

Technical Changes--More Restrictive

The proposed changes provide more stringent requirements than

previously existed in the Technical Specifications. The more stringent

requirements provide greater assurance that the affected systems will

remain capable of providing the safety functions assumed in design

basis accidents and transients. If anything, the new requirements may

decrease the probability or consequences of an analyzed event. The

change will not alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident

or transient event. The more restrictive requirements will not alter

the operation of process variables, structures, systems, or components

as described in the safety analyses.

Technical Changes--Relocations

This proposed change relocates requirements from the Technical

Specifications to the Inservice Testing (IST) Program. The (IST)

Program documents containing the relocated requirements must be

maintained using the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55a and 10 CFR 50.59.

Since any changes to the (IST) Program documents will be evaluated per

10 CFR 50.55a and 10 CFR 50.59, no increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously evaluated will be allowed

without NRC review.

Technical Changes--Less Restrictive

This change relaxes the current requirements to declare the

affected RBCCW subsystem inoperable when one of the required RBCCW

pumps is inoperable. Since the RBCCW system is not assumed as an

initiator of any analyzed event, the proposed change will not affect

the probability of an accident occurring. The safety function of the

RBCCW system is to support the operability of the RHR suppression pool

cooling and spray functions, and component cooling for the RHR and core

spray pumps, and area coolers. With one required RBCCW pump inoperable,

the remaining pump in the affected subsystem is capable of supporting

the component cooling requirements for the RHR and core spray pumps,

and area coolers, and the remaining OPERABLE subsystem is capable of

supporting the suppression pool cooling and spray functions.

2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Operation of PNPS in accordance with the proposed change will not

create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated because of the following:

Administrative Changes

The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the

plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or

changes in methods governing plant operation. The proposed changes will

not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing

requirements.

Technical Changes--More Restrictive

The proposed more restrictive requirements will not alter the plant

configuration (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)

or change methods governing plant operation. The change does impose

different requirements. However, the changes are consistent with

assumptions made in the safety analyses.

Technical Changes--Relocations

This change relocates requirements to the (IST) Program. This

change will not alter the plant configuration (no new or different type

of equipment will be installed) or changes in methods governing plant

operation. This change will not impose different requirements, and

adequate control of information will be maintained. This change will

not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.

Technical Changes--Less Restrictive

The proposed change will not involve any physical changes to plant

systems, structures, or components (SSC), or the manner in which these

systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.

3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety?

[[Page 17222]]

Administrative Changes

Operation of PNPS in accordance with the proposed change will not

involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because of the

following: safety analysis margin of safety.

The changes are administrative in nature and do not involve any

technical changes. Since no technical changes (either actual or

interpretational) were made, there is no impact on any safety analysis

margin of safety.

Technical Changes--More Restrictive

The proposed more restrictive requirements will not alter

assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient event or

alter the operation of process variables, structures, systems, or

components as described in the safety analyses.

Technical Changes--Relocations

This change relocates requirements from the Technical

Specifications to the Inservice Testing (IST) Program. The requirements

to be transposed to the IST program are the same as the existing

Technical Specifications. Since any changes to the (IST) Program

documents will be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.55a and 10 CFR 50.59, no

reduction in margin of safety previously approved will be allowed

without NRC review.

Technical Changes--Less Restrictive

The 7 day completion time is consistent with the completion times

for one inoperable loop of suppression pool cooling system or

containment spray system, and the remaining pump in the affected

subsystem is capable of supporting the component cooling requirements

for the RHR and core spray pumps, and area coolers.

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: Plymouth Public Library, 11

North Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360.

Attorney for licensee: W.S. Stowe, Esquire, Boston Edison Company,

800 Boylston Street, Massachusetts 02199.

NRC Project Director: Cecil O. Thomas.

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon

Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North

Carolina

Date of amendment request: March 12, 1998.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment revises

Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.12, ``Fuel Handling Building

Emergency Exhaust System.'' Specifically, Harris Nuclear Plant (HNP)

proposes to delete Surveillance Requirement 4.9.12.d.4, which requires

verifying that the filter cooling bypass valve for the Fuel Handling

Building Emergency Exhaust System is locked in the balanced position at

least once per 18 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 below:

1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase

in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Fuel Handling Building Emergency Exhaust System (FHBEES) is not an

accident initiating system as described in the Final Safety Analysis

Report. The proposed change allows the elimination of the filter

cooling bypass flowpath for FHBEES units. Engineering calculations were

performed which demonstrate this filter cooling path is not required to

mitigate the consequences of a fuel handling accident.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

FHBEES is a ventilation system designed to limit off-site dose

releases in the event of a fuel handling accident. FHBEES is not an

accident initiating system as described in the Final Safety Analysis

Report [FSAR]. The proposed change ensures the seismic and safety

classification is maintained while not affecting another Structure,

System, or Component.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a

new or different kind of accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction

in the margin of safety.

The proposed change to FHBEES does not affect any of the parameters

that relate to the margin of safety as described in the Bases of the TS

or the FSAR. Accordingly, NRC Acceptance Limits are not affected by

this change.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant

reduction in the margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on

this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Cameron Village Regional

Library, 1930 Clark Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27605.

Attorney for licensee: William D. Johnson, Vice President and

Senior Counsel, Carolina Power & Light Company, Post Office Box 1551,

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.

NRC Project Director: Pao Tsin Kuo, Acting Director.

Consumers Energy Company, Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren

County, Michigan

Date of amendment request: September 3, 1997, as supplemented March

13, 1998.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would

revise the technical specifications (TS) to delete snubber operability

requirements (Change A), action requirements for inoperable snubbers

(Change B), and snubber testing requirements (Change E). The snubber

testing requirements would be relocated to the Palisades Operating

Requirements Manual (ORM). Each proposed change has been classified by

the licensee as either Administrative, More Restrictive, or Less

Restrictive.

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:

Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

1. Administrative Change (Change A):

``Administrative'' changes make wording changes which clarify

existing TS requirements, without affecting their technical content.

Since ``Administrative'' changes do not alter the technical content of

any requirements, they cannot involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

[[Page 17223]]

2. More Restrictive Change (Change B):

``More Restrictive'' changes only add new requirements, or revise

existing requirements to result in additional operational restrictions.

The TS, with all ``More Restrictive'' changes incorporated, will still

contain all of the requirements which existed prior to the changes.

Therefore, ``More Restrictive'' changes cannot involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

3. Less Restrictive Change (Change E):

Change E deletes the TS requirements for snubber testing, but adds

identical requirements to a document (the ORM) controlled under 10 CFR

50.59.

10 CFR 50.59 specifically prohibits changes to the facility as

described in the safety analysis report, and to procedures described in

the safety analysis report (without prior NRC approval) ``if the

probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or

malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in

the safety analysis report may be increased''. Since the conditions

which limit changes performed under 50.59 are more restrictive than the

conditions which define changes considered to involve a significant

hazards consideration, moving of a requirement from the TS to a

document which is controlled under 50.59 cannot involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?

1. Administrative Change (Change A):

``Administrative'' changes make wording changes which clarify

existing TS requirements, without affecting their technical content.

Since ``Administrative'' changes do not alter the technical content of

any requirements, they cannot create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

2. More Restrictive Change (Change B):

``More Restrictive'' changes only add new requirements, or revise

existing requirements to result in additional operational restrictions.

The TS, with all ``More Restrictive'' changes incorporated, will still

contain all of the requirements which existed prior to the changes.

Therefore, ``More Restrictive'' changes cannot create the possibility

of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. Less Restrictive Change (Change E):

Change E deletes the TS requirements for snubber testing, but adds

identical requirements to a document (the ORM) controlled under 10 CFR

50.59.

10 CFR 50.59 specifically prohibits changes to the facility as

described in the safety analysis report, and to procedures described in

the safety analysis report (without prior NRC approval) ``if a

possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any

evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be created''.

Since the conditions which limit changes performed under 50.59 are more

restrictive than the conditions which define changes considered to

involve a significant hazards consideration, relocation of a

requirement from the TS to a document which is controlled under 50.59

cannot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident

from any previously evaluated.

Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin

of safety?

1. Administrative Change (Changes A):

``Administrative'' changes make wording changes which clarify

existing TS requirements, without affecting their technical content.

Since ``Administrative'' changes do not alter the technical content of

any requirements, they cannot involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

2. More Restrictive Change (Change B):

``More Restrictive'' changes only add new requirements, or revise

existing requirements to result in additional operational restrictions.

The TS, with all ``More Restrictive'' changes incorporated, will still

contain all of the requirements which existed prior to the changes.

Therefore, ``More Restrictive'' changes cannot involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety.

3. Less Restrictive Change (Change E):

Change E deletes the TS requirements for snubber testing, but adds

identical requirements to a document (the ORM) controlled under 10 CFR

50.59.

10 CFR 50.59 specifically prohibits changes to the facility as

described in the safety analysis report, and to procedures described in

the safety analysis report (without prior NRC approval) ``if the margin

of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is

reduced''. Since the conditions which limit changes performed under

50.59 are more restrictive than the conditions which define changes

considered to involve a significant hazards consideration, relocation

of a requirement from the TS to a document which is controlled under

50.59 cannot involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on

this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Van Wylen Library, Hope

College, Holland, Michigan 49423.

Attorney for licensee: Judd L. Bacon, Esquire, Consumers Energy

Company, 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson, Michigan 49201.

NRC Project Director: Cynthia A. Carpenter.

Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-16, Enrico Fermi Atomic Power

Plant, Unit 1, Monroe County, Michigan

Date of amendment request: December 15, 1997 (Reference NRC-98-

0023).

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment will add a

subpart 3 to Part 2.B of the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 1

(Fermi 1), that would allow the licensee to receive, acquire, possess,

use and transfer byproduct material without restriction to chemical or

physical form for sample analysis, instrument calibration, or

associated with radioactive apparatus, hardware, tools, and equipment,

provided the cumulative radioactive material quantity of the byproduct

material does not exceed the criteria contained in Section 30.72,

Schedule C, ``Quantities of Radioactive Material Requiring

Consideration of the Need for an Emergency Plan for Responding to a

Release.''

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 using the standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The licensee's

analysis is presented below:

(1) Does the proposed change significantly increase the probability

or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in

the probability or consequences of an accident. Using slightly

contaminated apparatus or a small non-exempt radioactive source cannot

affect the probability of the analyzed sodium or liquid waste

accidents. The ability to possess such equipment does not in itself

change any methods of handling liquid waste or sodium. Use of

[[Page 17224]]

contaminated equipment could potentially increase the consequences of

an accident if it was in use or in the vicinity if an accident occurs.

However, the increase in consequences would not be significant due to

the limitations on radioactivity content of such equipment. The limit

was selected to be that in 10 CFR Part 30.72, Schedule C, as the

threshold beyond which offsite emergency plans are required. Since the

quantity is below that requiring an offsite emergency plan, even if all

the byproduct material allowed to be possessed by the proposed

amendment were released during a postulated accident, the consequences

would be significantly increased. The quantity contained in any

specific piece of contaminated apparatus or a source would be expected

to be even less. Therefore, this amendment does not involve a

significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident.

(2) Will the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed?

The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or

different type of accident from any previously evaluated. Allowing

possession of contaminated apparatus, tools, or equipment does not

change methods of monitoring the facility or operation or surveillance

of any system at Fermi 1. While possession of a different source will

permit other instruments to be calibrated, source checked, or tested at

Fermi 1, testing of instrumentation is routine, ordinary activity. It

is not an activity which creates the possibility of a new or different

type of accident.

(3) Will the proposed change significantly reduce the margin of

safety at the facility?

The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in

the margin of safety at Fermi 1. No change to any system or the status

of any systems or structures, are created by this amendment. Being able

to have limited amounts of additional radioactive material at Fermi 1

in the form of contaminated apparatus, tools, equipment or hardware or

non-exempt radioactive sources will not significantly reduce the margin

of safety because a 10 CFR Part 20 program is already in place and the

amount of radioactive material is being limited below the amount in 10

CFR Part 30.72, Schedule C. For these reasons, this amendment will not

significantly reduce the margin of safety at Fermi 1.

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, NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request

involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: Monroe County Library System,

3700 South Custer Road, Monroe, Michigan 48161.

Attorney for licensee: John Flynn, Esquire, Detroit Edison Company,

2000 Second Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226.

NRC Branch Chief: John W. N. Hickey.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie

Plant, Unit No 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

Date of amendment request: March 3, 1998.

Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes to

revise the applicability of the St. Lucie Unit 2 technical

specifications (TSs) to be consistent with St. Lucie Unit 1 TSs for

reactor coolant system (RCS) chemistry. In addition, the amendment

request proposes to modify the St. Lucie Unit 2 TSs by making

administrative changes to the TS discussion of the criticality design

features for fuel storage, and administrative changes to the technical

review responsibilities under the cognizance of the Company Nuclear

Review Board.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration

determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has

provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented below:

(1) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability

or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change to TS 3.4,7 will replace the existing

applicability statement of ``At all times'' with ``All MODES.'' This

revision will obviate the burden and personnel radiation exposures

associated with sampling the RCS for chloride and fluoride

concentrations during low temperature, defueled conditions. The

existing limits, corrective actions for above limit conditions, and

sampling requirements will be applicable for all operational MODES

defined in the TS. The proposed applicability will continue to assure

consistency with the bases for the RCS chemistry specification, and the

potential for occurrence, initial conditions, or consequences of events

considered in the safety analyses are not changed. The revisions

proposed for TS 5.6.1.a.1 and 6.5.2.9.d are administrative in nature,

and assure consistency with the bases for previously approved license

amendments. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the

proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

(2) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind

of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed amendment will not change the physical plant or the

operational MODES defined in the facility license. The changes do not

involve the addition of new equipment or the modification of existing

equipment, nor do they alter the design of St. Lucie plant systems.

Therefore, operation of 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) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety.

The proposed revision to TS 3.4.7 will not change the existing RCS

chemistry requirements that are applicable to the operational MODES

defined in the technical specifications. However, the change will allow

the chloride and fluoride concentrations to go unmonitored during

certain refueling operations when there is no fuel in the reactor

vessel. For the limited time intervals associated with this defueled

condition, the RCS is depressurized, coolant temperature is near

ambient, it is unlikely that the chloride and fluoride concentrations

could be significantly increased above the concentrations that existed

during MODE 6 prior to the core off-load, and susceptibility to

corrosive attack from these halides is, therefore, significantly

reduced. The existing bases for the RCS chemistry limiting conditions

for operation are not changed, and both the bases and the proposed

specification are consistent with the corresponding TS at St. Lucie

Unit 1. The proposed revisions to TS 5.6.1.a.1 and TS 6.5.2.9.d are

administrative in nature and ensure that descriptions contained therein

are consistent with the bases for previously approved license

amendments. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the

proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

[[Page 17225]]

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: Indian River Community College

Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 34981-5596.

Attorney for licensee: M. S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,

P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.

NRC Project Director: Frederick J. Hebdon.

Florida Power and Light Company, Dockets Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey

Point Plant Units 3 and 4, Dade County, Florida

Date of amendment request: March 12, 1998

Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to amend

Turkey Point Unit 3 Facility Operating License DPR-31 to delete license

conditions 3.I, ``Steam Generator Repair Program,'' 3.K, ``Integrated

Schedule,'' and Section 4 of the Operating License Conditions and

renumber Section 5 to Section 4; and to amend Turkey Point Unit 4

Facility Operating License DRP-41 to delete license conditions 3.H,

``Steam Generator Repair Program,'' and 3.K, ``Integrated Schedule''.

In addition, the proposed amendments would modify Appendix A of

Facility Operating Licenses DPR-31 and DPR-41 of the Turkey Point Units

3 and 4 Technical Specifications (TS) to delete outdated references

from TS Figure 5.1-2, ``Plant Area Map'' and to incorporate a recent

organization change in TS 6.5.1.2, and 6.5.3.1.a.

The proposed changes are administrative in nature because they

would remove fulfilled license conditions and outdated TS references,

and incorporate an organizational 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) 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 do not involve a significant increase in

the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated

because the proposed changes are administrative in nature removing

fulfilled license conditions, outdated Technical Specification

referenced material, and reflecting an organizational change. These

amendments will not involve a significant increase in the probability

or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because they do not

affect assumptions contained in plant safety analyses, the physical

design and/or operation of the plant, nor do they affect Technical

Specifications that preserve safety analysis assumptions. Therefore,

the proposed changes do not affect the probability or consequences of

accidents previously analyzed.

(2) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed

amendments would not create the possibility of a new or different kind

of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The use of the modified specifications cannot create the

possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 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

changes since the proposed changes do not involve the addition or

modification of equipment nor do they alter the design or operation of

affected plant systems, structures, or components.

(3) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed

amendments would 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 organizational change from Services Manager to

Protection Services Manager maintained the associated level of

management controls and the required qualifications. The proposed

changes to the Facility Operating License Conditions and to the

Technical Specifications are administrative and do not significantly

reduce any of the margins 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: Library, Florida International

University, University Park Campus, Miami, Florida 33199.

Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,

P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.

NRC Project Director: Frederick J. Hebdon.

North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook

Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

Date of amendment request: March 2, 1998.

Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise

Technical Specification (TS) 4.5.2.b.1 to delete the requirement to

vent the operating chemical volume and control system (CVCS)

centrifugal charging pump casing.

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 does not affect accident initiators or

precursors and does not alter the design assumptions affecting the

ability of the ECCS [emergency core cooling system] pumps to mitigate

the consequences of an accident.

The proposed change will align the surveillance requirements with

the installed system design and normal operating conditions. The intent

of the surveillance requirement ensures operability of the CVCS

centrifugal charging pumps by verifying that the ECCS pumps and piping

is full of water and not subjected to gas binding or hydraulic

transients.

Excluding the venting of the operating CVCS centrifugal charging

pump will not effect pump operation nor subject the high head safety

injection portion of the ECCS to potential hydraulic transients.

Venting the operating pump under a dynamic condition at high system

pressure is ineffective.

The design and installation of the CVCS centrifugal charging pumps

is such that significant non-condensable gasses do not collect in the

pumps, whether they are running or not. Therefore, it is unnecessary to

require periodic pump casing venting to ensure the pumps will remain

operable. Venting of the non-operating centrifugal charging pump will

continue to be performed, as required by TS 4.5.2b.1.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant

increase in the

[[Page 17226]]

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 previously analyzed.

The proposed change will not result in new failure modes because no

new components or physical changes are involved with this change nor

are the components operated in a new or different manner. The proposed

change does not alter the ability of the CVCS centrifugal charging

pumps to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences

of an initiating event within the acceptance limits assumed in the

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed change has

no impact on component or system interactions, or the plant design

basis. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility

of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.

3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in

a margin of safety.

There is no impact on equipment design or operation and there are

no changes being made to the Technical Specification required safety

limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant

safety. The CVCS centrifugal charging pumps are designed and installed

to be self-venting, such that, accumulation, if any, of non-condensable

gasses would have no significant impact on pump operation. Since the

proposed change will not result in new failure modes, then, the

designed margins of safety to minimize/preclude the consequences of a

radiological event resulting from a design basis accident remain

unchanged. Therefore, the proposed change to eliminate the requirement

to vent the operating CVCS centrifugal charging pump casing does not

involve a significant 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 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: Exeter Public Library,

Founders Park, Exeter, NH 03833.

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: Cecil O. Thomas.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,

Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

Date of amendment request: January 30, 1998.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would

revise the technical specifications (TS) by relocating pressure-

temperature (P-T) curves, predicted radiation induced NDTT shift

curves, and the low temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) limits

and values from the TS to an OPPD controlled document.

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 changes relocate the reactor coolant system (RCS)

pressure-temperature (P-T) curves, the predicted radiation induced NDTT

shift curve and the low temperature overpressure protection (LTOP)

limits to the Fort Calhoun Station Unit No. 1 RCS Pressure-Temperature

Limits Report (PTLR).

Compliance with these curves and limits continues to be required by

the Technical Specifications. Changes to the curves and limits will be

controlled by TS 5.9.6, and must be in accordance with the NRC and ASME

approved methodologies listed there and with 10 CFR 50.59.

The FCS PTLR in combination with the limitations imposed by the TS,

will ensure the integrity of the reactor vessel pressure boundary.

Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.

There will be no physical alterations to the plant configuration

(no new or different equipment is being installed). No changes in

operating modes or limits are proposed. The TS retain requirements to

maintain the RCS within acceptable operational limits established in

accordance with NRC and ASME approved methodologies and assure

operability of the LTOP system. As such, the TS will continue to

require compliance with the limitations being relocated to the FCS

PTLR. Therefore, these proposed changes do not create the possibility

of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in

a margin of safety.

This proposed change to the FCS TS is administrative in nature

relocating the P-T curves, NDTT curve, LTOP limits and associated TS

requirements to the FCS PTLR in accordance with GL 96-03. Future

updates of the FCS PTLR will be conducted under the 10 CFR 50.59

process utilizing NRC and ASME approved methodologies (as described in

FCS Unit No. 1 PTLR, Rev. 0 and CEOG Task 942, Report CE NPSD-683, Rev.

02). Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on

this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: W. Dale Clark Library, 215

South 15th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.

Attorney for licensee: Perry D. Robinson, Winston & Strawn, 1400 L

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005-3502.

NRC Project Director: William H. Bateman.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,

Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

Date of amendment request: January 30, 1998.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would

revise Facility Operating License No. DPR-40 to delete the License Term

based on a reevaluation of the end of license fluence.

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 previously evaluated accidents affected by this change are

limited to the pressurized thermal shock (PTS) events. Vessel

embrittlement due to fast neutron associated damage to the limiting

beltline region reactor vessel material, which for Fort Calhoun Station

is the lower course axial welds, is a

[[Page 17227]]

component in the PTS analysis. The fast neutron, thermal neutron and

dpa values of the FCS reactor vessel were recalculated using actual

power history values for Cycles 1 through 14 rather than conservative

estimates, with the revised BUGLE-93 cross sections from the ENDF/B-VI

cross section library to appropriately account for the iron atoms in

the thermal shield and a methodology that the NRC has previously

approved for neutron fluence calculations performed by Westinghouse.

The evaluation included data from the three surveillance capsules (W-

225, W-265, and W-275) previously removed and analyzed. The evaluation

results indicate that the FCS reactor vessel is able to reach current

licensed life without exceeding the 10 CFR 50.61 screening criteria for

RTPTS of 270 deg.F for limiting axial welds.

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.61, this assessment must be updated

whenever there is a significant change in projected values of

RTPTS or upon request for a change in the expiration date of

the facility. Since these requirements are contained in 10 CFR 50.61,

Section 3.E can be deleted from Operating License No. DPR-40 without

resulting in a significant increase in the probability or consequences

of any accident previously evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change does not physically alter the configuration of

the plant and no new or different mode of operation is proposed.

Increasing the long term load factor from 0.77 to 0.85 more accurately

projects RTPTS by accounting for improvement in FCS

operating cycle efficiency. Requirements for assessing and reporting

RTPTS are contained in 10 CFR 50.61 and therefore, the

proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously analyzed.

3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in

a margin of safety.

The margin of safety is defined by the draft regulatory guide DG-

1053 for neutron fluence calculations which requires the methodology to

be capable of providing best estimate fluence evaluations within plus

or minus 20 percent (1). The analysis shows that the

applicable regulatory criteria are met and therefore, the proposed

change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on

this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Local Public Document Room location: W. Dale Clark Library, 215

South 15th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.

Attorney for licensee: Perry D. Robinson, Winston & Strawn, 1400 L

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005-3502.

NRC Project Director: William H. Bateman.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,

Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

Date of amendment request: March 18, 1998.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would

revise the technical specifications by changing the title of the Shift

Supervisor to Shift Manager.

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.

OPPD proposes to change the title of the Shift Supervisor to Shift

Manager. The qualifications required of these individuals and the

duties they perform are unchanged. The title of Shift Manager better

conveys the appropriate level of responsibility and authority required

of the position. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

There will be no physical alterations to the plant configuration

(no new or different equipment is being installed). No changes in

operating modes or limits are proposed. The qualifications required of

these individuals and the duties they perform are unchanged. Therefore,

these proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in

a margin of safety.

The proposed change in the title of the Shift Supervisor to Shift

Manager is strictly administrative. The qualifications required of

these individuals and the duties they perform are unchanged. The title

of Shift Manager better conveys the appropriate level of responsibility

and authority required of the position. Therefore, this change does not

involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

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: W. Dale Clark Library, 215

South 15th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.

Attorney for licensee: Perry D. Robinson, Winston & Strawn, 1400 L

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005-3502.

NRC Project Director: William H. Bateman.

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388,

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne Count,

Pennsylvania

Date of amendment request: August 1, 1996.

Description of amendment request: The change would increase the

surveillance test intervals for: (1) the standby liquid control (SLC)

system that ensures that there is a functioning flow path from the

boron injection tank to the reactor pressure vessel, and (2) the scram

discharge volume (SDV) that verifies system performance of the vent and

drain valves. Specifically, the interval for SLC testing is being

increased from once every 18 months to once every 24 months for a

maximum interval of 30 months including the 25 percent grace period;

and, from once every 36 months to once every 48 months for those

surveillances on a staggered test basis. The frequency for testing the

SDV vent and drain valves would be increased from once every 18 months

to once every 24 months for a maximum interval of 30 months including

the 25 percent grace period.

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

[[Page 17228]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

The proposed changes involve a change in the surveillance Frequency

from 18 months to 24 months. The change in surveillance Frequency is

not assumed to be an accident initiator for any accidents previously

evaluated in the SAR. Therefore, this change will have no impact on the

probability of an accident previously evaluated. By changing the

surveillance Frequency from 18 months plus grace to a maximum of 30

months, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR

are not significantly increased. This is based on the fact that the

evaluation of the subject changes demonstrated that the overall impact,

if any, on the systems availability is minimal. Since the impact on the

systems is minimal, it can be concluded that the overall impact on the

plant accident analysis is negligible. Furthermore, it is shown that

the performance history for the subject systems does not indicate any

failures which would invalidate the conclusions reached in this

evaluation.

2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

This proposed change will not involve any physical changes to plant

systems, structures, or components (SCC). The changes in normal plant

operation are consistent with the current safety analysis assumptions.

Therefore, this change will not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety?

The margin of safety has not been significantly reduced. Although,

there will be an increase in the interval between the subject

surveillance tests, the evaluation of the changes demonstrates that

there is no evidence of any failures which would impact the subject

systems availability. Based on the fact that the increased testing

interval has a minimal impact on the subject systems, it can be

concluded that the assumptions in the licensing basis are not impacted

by the changes in the subject requirements and commitments.

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: Osterhout Free Library,

Reference Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts

and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz.

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388,

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County,

Pennsylvania

Date of amendment request: August 1, 1996.

Description of amendment request: The change would increase the

surveillance test intervals for performance of channel calibrations on:

(1) the reactor protection system (RPS) instrumentation, (2) the source

range monitor (SRM) instrumentation, (3) the feedwater-main turbine

high-water-level trip instrumentation, (4) the post accident monitoring

(PAM) instrumentation, (5) the remote shutdown system instrumentation,

(6) the end-of-cycle recirculation pump trip (EOC-RPT) instrumentation,

(7) the anticipated transient without scram recirculation pump trip

(ATWS-RPT) instrumentation, (8) the emergency core cooling system

(ECCS) instrumentation, (9) the rector core isolation cooling (RCIC)

system instrumentation, (10) the primary containment isolation

instrumentation, (11) secondary containment isolation instrumentation,

(12) the control room emergency outside air supply (CREOAS) system

instrumentation, (13) the loss of power (LOP) instrumentation, and (14)

the RPS electric power monitoring instrumentation. Specifically, the

intervals for the associated channel calibration would be increased

from either once every 18 months or refueling cycle to once every 24

months for a maximum interval of 30 months including the 25 percent

grace period.

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 changes involve a change in the surveillance Frequency

from 18 months to 24 months. The change in surveillance Frequency is

not assumed to be an accident initiator for any accidents previously

evaluated in the SAR. Furthermore, the instrument drift has been

evaluated and found to be acceptable for the extended operating

cycle[.] Therefore, this change will have no impact on the probability

of an accident previously evaluated. By changing the Surveillance

Frequency from 18 months plus grace to a maximum of 30 months, the

consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR are not

significantly increased. This is based on the fact that the evaluation

of the subject changes demonstrated that the overall impact, if any, on

the systems availability is minimal and instrument drift over the

extended operating cycle has been evaluated and found to be acceptable.

Since the impact on the systems and from instrument drift is minimal,

it can be concluded that the overall impact on the plant accident

analysis is negligible. Furthermore, it is shown that the performance

history for the subject systems does not indicate any failures which

would invalidate the conclusions reached in this evaluation.

2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

This proposed change will not involve any physical changes to plant

systems, structures, or components (SCC). The changes in normal plant

operation are consistent with the current safety analysis assumptions.

Therefore, this change will not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety?

The margin of safety has not been significantly reduced. Although,

there will be an increase in the interval between the subject

surveillance tests, the evaluation of the changes demonstrates that

there is no evidence of any failures which would impact the subject

systems availability. Based on the fact that the increased testing

interval has a minimal impact on the subject systems, it can be

concluded that the assumptions in the licensing basis are not impacted

by the changes in the subject requirements and commitments.

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: Osterhout Free Library,

[[Page 17229]]

Reference Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts

and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz.

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388,

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County,

Pennsylvania

Date of amendment request: August 1, 1996.

Description of amendment request: The change would increase the

surveillance test intervals for: (1) the integrated leak test of each

system listed as a primary coolant source outside containment, and (2)

the engineered safety feature filter ventilation systems in the

ventillation filter testing program. Specifically, the interval for

these tests would be increased from once every 18 months to once every

24 months for a maximum interval of 30 months including the 25 percent

grace period.

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 changes involve a change in the surveillance Frequency

from 18 months to 24 months. The change in surveillance Frequency is

not assumed to be an accident initiator for any accidents previously

evaluated in the SAR [safety analysis report]. Therefore, this change

will have no impact on the probability of an accident previously

evaluated. By changing the Surveillance Frequency from 18 months plus

grace to a maximum of 30 months, the consequences of an accident

previously evaluated in the SAR are not significantly increased. This

is based on the fact that the evaluation of the subject changes

demonstrated that the overall impact, if any, on the systems

availability is minimal. Because the impact on the systems is minimal,

it can be concluded that the overall impact on the plant accident

analysis is negligible. Furthermore, it is shown that the performance

history for the subject systems does not indicate any failures which

would invalidate the conclusions reached in this evaluation.

2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

This proposed change will not involve any physical changes to plant

systems, structures, or components (SCC). The changes in normal plant

operation are consistent with the current safety analysis assumptions.

Therefore, this change will not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety?

The margin of safety has not been significantly reduced. Although,

there will be an increase in the interval between the subject

surveillance tests, the evaluation of the changes demonstrates that

there is no evidence of any failures which would impact the subject

systems availability. Based on the fact that the increased testing

interval has a minimal impact on the subject systems, it can be

concluded that the assumptions in the licensing basis are not impacted

by the changes in the subject requirements and commitments.

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: Osterhout Free Library,

Reference Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts

and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz.

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388,

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County,

Pennsylvania

Date of amendment request: August 1, 1996.

Description of amendment request: The change would increase the

surveillance test intervals for the AC and DC electrical power system

sources. Specifically, the intervals for various functional tests would

be increased from once every 18 months to once every 24 months for a

maximum interval of 30 months including the 25 percent grace period.

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 changes involve a change in the surveillance Frequency

from 18 months to 24 months. The change in surveillance Frequency is

not assumed to be an accident initiator for any accidents previously

evaluated in the [safety analysis report] SAR. Therefore, this change