[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11125-11151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4870]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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

I. Background

    Pursuant to Pubic Law 97-415, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (the Commission on 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 
[[Page 11126]] 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 February 3, 1995, through February 16, 1995. 
The last biweekly notice was published on February 15, 1995 (60 FR 
8739).

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 March 31, 1995, 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 
shale 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 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 [[Page 11127]] 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 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 section, 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, Unit Nos. 
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of amendment requests: December 7, 1994.
    Description of amendment requests: The proposed amendment would 
revise the capacity of the ultimate heat sink (UHS) as described in the 
bases of Technical Specification 3/4.7.5, ``Ultimate Heat Sink,'' from 
providing a 27-day cooling water supply to providing a 26-day cooling 
water supply. In addition, the reference to Regulatory Guide 1.27 in 
the bases of this TS would also be revised to reference the January 
1976 revision rather than the March 1974 revision.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensees have 
provided their analysis about the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    Standard 1--Does the proposed change involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    The Essential spray pond system and the UHS do not initiate any 
accidents in Chapters 6 or 15 of the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report]. The justification and basis for the time that the 
UHS is available is not changed and continues to be consistent with 
the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.27. The existing Technical 
Specification requirements and those components to which they apply 
are not altered by this Technical Specification amendment. 
Therefore, the change to the bases for Technical Specification 3/
4.7.5 does not increase the probability of occurrence or the 
consequences of any previously evaluated accident.
    Standard 2--Does the proposed change create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    The requirements for Technical Specification 3/4.7.5 are not 
changed. This amendment has no impact on plant maintenance, testing, 
shutdown equipment, or component qualification. Therefore, the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident is not created by 
this amendment.
    Standard 3--Does the proposed change involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety?
    The change to the bases for Technical Specification 3/4.7.5 does 
not significantly alter existing Technical Specification 
requirements or those coponments to which they apply. The 
justification and basis for the time that the UHS is available 
without makeup is not changed and continues to be consistent with 
the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.27. Regulatory Guide 1.27 states 
that ``A capacity less than 30 days may be acceptable if it can be 
demonstrated that replenishment can be effected to ensure that 
continuous capability of the sink to perform its safety functions, 
taking into account the availability of replenishment equipment and 
limitations that may be imposed on ``freedom of movement'' following 
an accident.'' This change does not effect the continuous capability 
of the UHS to perform its safety function of providing decay heat 
removal capability following an accident. The change updates the 
design basis of the UHS using more realistic conditions based on 
plant experience. Therefore, the change in the capacity of the UHS 
without makeup from 27 days to 26 days will not involve a 
significant reduction in margin of safety for the ultimate heat 
sink.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees' 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 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Local Public Document Room location: Phoenix Public Library, 12 
East McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.
    Attorney for licensees: Nancy C. Loftin, Esq., Corporation 
Secretary and Counsel, Arizona Public Service Company, P.O. Box 53999, 
Mail Station 9068, Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999.
    NRC Project Director: Theodore R. Quay.
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: June 18, 1992, as supplemented December 
8, 1992, and revised February 3, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed Technical 
Specification (TS) amendment adds limiting conditions of operation and 
surveillance requirements for the pressurizer power-operated relief 
valves (PORVs) and their associated block valves whenever average 
temperature (Tavg) is above 350 degrees F or the reactor is critical. 
Specifications have also been added for low-temperature overpressure 
protection whenever Tavg is less than 350 degrees F and the reactor 
coolant system is not vented to the containment. The February 3, 1995, 
revision made editorial changes to previous TS pages and made changes 
to conform with an additional provision of the guidance for 
surveillance testing of the block valves associated with the 
pressurizer PORVs. In addition, the licensee has requested an editorial 
change to TS page 3.1.-11 to revise the references to two figures that 
have been superseded.
    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 requested revision does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously [[Page 11128]] evaluated. The proposed revision to our 
previous Technical Specification (TS) change request dated June 18, 
1992, would help assure the availability of the block valves for 
accident mitigation. The availability of the block valves for 
accident mitigation has been found to outweigh any negative safety 
consequences associated with full cycle testing of a block valve 
isolating a pressurizer power-operated relief valves (PORV) with 
``excessive'' seat leakage. There would be no significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated since this event is fully bounded by the failing open of a 
single pressurizer code safety relief valve event which is analyzed 
in Chapter 15 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. 
Accordingly, the requested revision will not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The requested revision to our previous TS change request does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated. Periodic testing of the 
block valves in accordance with the requested revision is only 
intended to assure the functioning and capability of the block 
valves. The requested revision will only clarify the conditions when 
block valve surveillance testing is required. The performance of 
this testing is intended to improve block valve availability and 
thereby assure the capability of certain accident mitigation 
strategies identified within Abnormal and Emergency Operating 
Procedures. Therefore, the requested revision will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. The requested revision to our previous TS change request does 
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The 
requested revision is intended to help assure block valve 
availability to support certain accident mitigation strategies. This 
additional assurance of block valve availability and functioning 
increases the margin of safety. Accordingly, the requested revision 
will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Local Public Document Room location: Hartsville Memorial Library, 
147 West College Avenue, Hartsville, South Carolina 29550.
    Attorney for licensee: R. E. Jones, General Counsel, Carolina Power 
& Light Company, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
    NRC Project Director: William H. Bateman.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: December 14, 1994.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise technical specifications related to allowed outage times (AOT) 
and surveillance test intervals (STI) for certain actuation 
instrumentation in the reactor protection system (RPS), primary 
containment isolation system (PCIS), emergency core cooling system 
(ECCS), recirculation pump trip, reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC), 
control rod withdrawal block, monitoring, and feedwater/main turbine 
trip systems. These changes are generally consistent with General 
Electric topical reports which have been reviewed and approved by the 
NRC. The changes also include revising the Feedwater/Main Turbine Trip 
LCO 3.3.8 action statement to achieve consistency with existing 
instrumentation LCOs; deleting the surveillance of the APRM Neutron 
Flux--High, Setdown functional unit in Operational Condition 1; 
revising the applicability of the provisions of Specification 4.0.4 to 
several Reactor Protection System and Control Rod Withdrawal Block 
Instrumentation surveillance requirements; adding the requirement to 
perform shiftly channel checks for applicable RPS, PCIS, ECCS, and RCIC 
instrumentation channels equipped with master trip units; and other 
changes to correct typographical errors and to delete cycle specific 
footnotes which are no longer applicable.
    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:

It has been determined that the changes do not constitute a 
Significant Hazards Consideration. Based on the criteria for 
defining a significant hazards consideration established in 10 CFR 
50.92, operation of LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not:
    (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because:
    a. The proposed changes increase the STI and AOT for actuation 
instrumentation supporting RPS, ECCS, Isolation, CRBF, RCIC, ATWS-
RPT, EOC-RPT, Monitoring, and Feedwater/Main Turbine Trip System 
Actuation functions. There are no changes in instrumentation 
configuration and function, and no instrumentation setpoints are 
changed. Because of this there is no change in the probability of 
occurrence of an accident or the consequences of an accident or the 
consequences of malfunction of equipment. With respect to the 
probability of equipment malfunction, topical reports prepared by GE 
demonstrate that there is a reduction in scram frequency for the 
RPS, but in the case of the ECCS there is a small increase in the 
unavailability of the water injection function. This increase in 
unavailability was judged acceptable by GE. The NRC concurred with 
this conclusion in its review and approval of the topical reports. 
The proposed changes are consistent with the Safety Evaluation 
Reports issued for the topical reports.
    b. The changes proposed for the Feedwater/Main Turbine Trip LCO 
action statements provide actions which are consistent with 
presently existing instrumentation LCOs. The design and function of 
the feedwater/main turbine trip instrumentation to trip the 
feedwater pumps and the main turbine upon detection of a Level 8 
event is not altered. The probability and/or consequences of this 
moderate frequency transient are not increased.
    c. The APRM Neutron Flux--High, Setdown scram setting provides 
adequate thermal margin between the setpoint and the safety limits 
for operation at low pressure and low flow during a plant startup. 
This function remains in effect until the mode switch is placed in 
the Run (Operational Condition 1) position, at which time it is 
bypassed. Deleting the requirement for the surveillance of the APRM 
Neutron Flux--High, Setdown functional unit in Operational Condition 
1 is appropriate since its function is not applicable in this mode. 
This deletion serves to achieve consistency between Technical 
Specification Tables and the Bases section.
    d. The changes associated with Specification 4.0.4 are 
administrative in nature and are intended to provide the plant 
operators with better guidance for its application. In cases where 
complete surveillances cannot be achieved, such as during a plant 
shutdown, then the required surveillances will be performed within 
24 hours of entering the Mode or condition in which the surveillance 
is required. The stabilization of the plant will be of primary 
consideration. This change does not affect the evaluation for any 
accident presented in Chapter 15 of the UFSAR. The APRM Fixed 
Neutron Flux--High quarterly functional tests most of the APRM 
channel equipment associated with the APRM Neutron Flux--High, 
Setdown scram.
    Additionally, the expected result of the functional tests 
associated with the SRMs, IRMs, and APRMs is to demonstrate the 
operability of the instrumentation. Therefore, 24 hours is a 
reasonable time to permit the surveillances to be performed upon 
entering the mode or condition in which the surveillance is 
required.
    e. The proposal to include the performance of channel checks as 
requirements of technical specifications is administrative in 
nature. Presently, channel checks performed for the applicable 
analog instrumentation in reactor vessel water level applications is 
controlled solely by procedure. Adding this 
[[Page 11129]] requirement to the technical specifications provides 
for the appropriate controls of the surveillances, above and beyond 
that presently controlled by procedure.
    f. The proposed administrative changes are offered to correct 
typographical errors and delete cycle specific footnotes which are 
no longer applicable. The nature of the changes precludes them from 
impacting previously analyzed accidents.
    The proposed changes therefore do not involve a significant 
increase in 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 because:
    a. The proposed changes increase the STI and AOT for certain 
actuation instrumentation in the RPS, ECCS, Isolation, CRBF, RCIC, 
ATWS-RPT, EOC-RPT, Monitoring, and Feedwater/Main Turbine Trip 
systems. There are no changes in instrumentation configuration and 
function, and no instrumentation setpoints are changed.
    b. The changes to the Feedwater/Main Turbine Trip LCO action 
statements allow the plant operators a maximum degree of operational 
flexibility, while maintaining the instrumentation and protection 
needed for terminating the feedwater controller failure transient. 
The single failure proof criterion of the level sensors is 
maintained, and the logic of the protective instrumentation is not 
compromised. The changes to the LCO action statements do not 
constitute a change to the facility or its operation as described in 
the Safety Analysis Report.
    c. Deleting the requirement for surveilling the APRM Neutron 
Flux--High, Setdown functional unit in Operating Condition 1 does 
not degrade thermal margins. The margin accommodates the anticipated 
maneuvers associated with plant power ascension. During a plant 
shutdown, rod insertion maneuvers, recirculation flow reduction, and 
xenon build-in all contribute to negative reactivity insertion which 
precludes the degradation and violation of thermal margins. The 
functions of the APRMs required to be OPERABLE in Operational 
Condition 1 which are in effect remain to ensure that reactor core 
thermal margins are not compromised.
    d. The conduct of neutron instrument functional tests in the 
plant mode or condition in which the trips are applicable eliminates 
unnecessary testing during normal plant operations. The expected 
result of the functional testing is to demonstrate the operability 
of the instruments. The failure of any single instrument channel 
will neither cause nor prevent either a reactor scram or a control 
rod block.
    e. Including the performance of channel checks for the 
applicable analog instrumentation as part of the technical 
specifications transfers control of the required surveillances from 
procedure to the technical specifications, as appropriate. The 
administrative nature of this change does not alter the functions, 
setpoints, or configuration of the associated instrumentation.
    f. The administrative nature of the changes prevents them from 
affecting the functions, setpoints, or configuration of the 
associated instrumentation from being affected by the changes.
    The proposed changes do not create the possibility for an 
accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously 
evaluated in the UFSAR.
    (3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety 
because:
    a. Setpoints are based upon the drift occurring during an 18 
month calibration interval. The bases in the Technical 
Specifications either do not discuss STI, or state ``* * * one 
channel may be inoperable for brief intervals to conduct required 
surveillance.'' The proposed changes are bounded by the analyses of 
the topical reports. These analyses, which were prepared by GE and 
approved by the NRC, examined the effects of extending STI and AOT 
and found that the proposed changes would not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    b. The proposed changes to the turbine trip LCO action 
statements do not change any of the settings of the Level 8 
setpoints. The single failure criteria of the multiple level sensors 
which sense and detect the Level 8 setpoint remains intact. The LCO 
maintains the requirement that no single instrument failure will 
prevent the feedwater pump turbines and main turbine trip on a valid 
Level 8 signal. Scram trip signals from the turbine retain the 
design feature that a single failure will neither initiate nor 
impede the initiation of a reactor scram (trip).
    c. The setting, function, and conditional requirements of the 
APRM Neutron Flux--High, Setdown function are not altered. This 
change serves to achieve consistency between two Technical 
Specifications Tables. This eliminates the need for surveilling a 
function in a mode which is not applicable. The functions of the 
APRMs required to be OPERABLE in Operational Condition 1 remain to 
ensure that reactor core thermal margins are not compromised.
    d. The reference to 4.0.4 applicability will assist to ensure 
consistent interpretation of the technical specifications by the 
plant operators. This assists in ensuring that the plant is operated 
within technical specification limitations. This change does not 
affect trip instrumentation setpoints, and the scram function of the 
RPS is assured by the weekly functional testing of the Manual Scram.
    e. Including the instrumentation channel checks as part of 
technical specification requirements provides an appropriately 
regimented method of controlling the conduct of the surveillances. 
None of the functions, setpoints, or configuration of the associated 
analog instrumentation is affected by this administrative change.
    f. The administrative nature of the changes serves to provide 
more concise guidance to the plant operating staff, and as such do 
not impact the safety margin.
    The proposed changes do not significantly reduce the margin of 
safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Local Public Document Room location: Public Library of Illinois 
Valley Community College, Rural Route No. 1, Oglesby, Illinois 61348
    Attorney for licensee: Michael I. Miller, Esquire; Sidley and 
Austin, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60690.
    NRC Project Director: Robert A. Capra.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: January 13, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the pressure alarm setpoint allowable values for the emergency 
core cooling system (ECCS) and reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) 
system ``keep filled'' pressure instrumentation channels. The purpose 
of the proposed change is to lower the setpoint allowable values for 
these parameters to more realistic values based upon calculations 
performed by the licensee reflecting design changes and system 
performance. Also, the term ``setpoint'' is being changed to ``setpoint 
allowable value'' to clarify the use of the values. Additionally, two 
administrative/editorial changes are included to delete technical 
specification footnotes which are no longer applicable.
    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:

    Commonwealth Edison has evaluated the proposed Technical 
Specification Amendment and determined that it does not represent a 
significant hazards consideration. Based on the criteria for 
defining a significant hazards consideration established in 10 CFR 
50.92, operation of LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not:
    (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because:
    a. The proposed change in the technical specification allowable 
values for the ECCS and RCIC discharge line ``keep filled'' alarm 
instrument channels does not change the design bases or function of 
these systems as described in the technical specifications and 
UFSAR. An analysis performed by engineering demonstrates that the 
proposed allowable values are sufficient for verifying that the ECCS 
and RCIC pump discharge lines are full of water. In addition, 
setpoint [[Page 11130]] calculations have been performed to verify 
that sufficient margin exists between the recommended calibration 
setpoints and the analytical limits for these instrument channels to 
account for all applicable instrument errors. This provides high 
assurance that the trip setpoints of these instrument channels will 
not drop below the minimum required value. The ``keep filled'' 
instrumentation is not a factor in the assumptions of any accidents, 
thus, the probability of analyzed accidents is not increased.
    b. The proposed technical specification amendment does not 
revise the configuration of the ECCS and RCIC discharge line ``keep 
filled'' instrument channels or sensing lines. The proposed setpoint 
allowable values and associated calibration setpoints are within the 
calibration ranges of the existing pressure switches. Thus, 
implementation of the proposed amendment does not involve any 
physical alterations to the plant except for the recalibration of 
the pressure switches to the new calibration setpoints.
    c. The ECCS and RCIC discharge line ``keep filled'' instrument 
channels only perform a monitoring function. Other than ensuring 
system readiness they do not perform a function important to safety. 
Thus, the probability of a ECCS or RCIC failure is not increased 
since the operation and function of the ECCS and RCIC discharge line 
fill systems is not affected by this change.
    d. The failure of a ECCS or RCIC discharge line fill system will 
not go undetected by the proposed change, since water leg pump trips 
are annunciated in the control room. In addition, quarterly 
surveillances are performed on these pumps to check for degradation.
    e. The ECCS and RCIC discharge line fill systems are not used to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident or transient. These systems 
are not required after the ECCS and RCIC pumps are activated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not cause an increase in 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 because: This 
technical specification amendment only lowers the trip setpoint 
allowable values for the ECCS and RCIC discharge line ``keep 
filled'' alarm instrumentation channels. As described above, the 
proposed setpoint allowable values are sufficient for verifying that 
the ECCS and RCIC discharge lines are full of water. Thus, the 
probability of a water hammer occurring during system activation for 
a surveillance test is not increased. In addition, each instrument 
channel is independent from the other channels so that a failure in 
one channel will not propagate to another channel. Therefore, the 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident.
    (3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety 
because: The margin of safety is not affected by this amendment, 
because this change involves monitoring instrumentation only. The 
purpose of the ECCS and RCIC discharge line ``keep filled'' alarms 
is to alert the operators when a ECCS or RCIC system may not be 
operable due to empty or partially empty discharge lines. The 
proposed amendment does not alter or degrade this function, since 
the new setpoint allowable values are adequate for verifying that 
the discharge lines are full of water. Therefore the operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment 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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Local Public Document Room location: Public Library of Illinois 
Valley Community College, Rural Route No. 1, Oglesby, Illinois 61348.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael I. Miller, Esquire; Sidley and 
Austin, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60690.
    NRC Project Director: Robert A. Capra.
Consumers Power Company, Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren 
County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: January 13, 1995
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the required settings, and allowable ``as found'' and ``as 
left'' tolerances for the primary and secondary safety valves. The 
proposed limits would allow installed primary and secondary valve 
settings to be within a 3% tolerance of their nominal settings, but 
would require returning the valve settings to within 1% of the nominal 
settings if the valves are removed from the piping for maintenance or 
testing.
    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:

    The following evaluation supports the finding that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed technical specification 
change would not:
    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change to the Technical Specifications increases 
the acceptable as found tolerance for the pressurizer safety valves. 
The most limiting overpressure event, loss of external load, has 
been analyzed to account for this change. The loss of external load 
analysis was performed using a conservative 25% steam generator tube 
plugging and an initial pressurizer level of 67.8% (providing an 
approximate 10% conservative margin above programmed pressurizer 
level for full power). Primary and secondary safety valve 
accumulation was conservatively accounted for and the setpoint 
tolerance of +3% was assumed. Reactor trip on turbine trip was 
assumed to be disabled and the atmospheric dump valves were assumed 
unavailable. The results of the analysis demonstrated primary and 
secondary system pressures within 110% of design pressures. 
Therefore, the consequences of overpressurization events will not be 
significantly increased with a +3% tolerance on the primary safety 
valve setpoints. The proposed Technical Specifications change will 
not affect normal plant operation and will not increase the 
probability of an accident.
    A review of all DNB [departure from nucleate boiling] analyses 
was performed to ensure that predicted pressurizer pressures for 
those analyses would not be affected by a -3% tolerance on the 
lowest setpoint valve. The DNB analyses for which significant 
primary system pressure increases were predicted do not result in 
pressures high enough to lift the pressurizer safety valves with the 
proposed tolerance. A conservative DNB analysis that bounds the 
consequences of inadvertent opening of a pressurizer safety valve 
has also been previously performed with predicted acceptable 
results. If a pressurizer safety valve were to stick open, the 
consequences would be bounded by the small break LOCA [loss-of-
coolant accident] analysis. Therefore, the consequences due to a -3% 
tolerance on the primary safety valve setpoints will not increase 
the consequences or probability of an accident.
    The proposed revision removes the requirement for one operable 
pressurizer safety valve to be installed whenever the reactor head 
is on the vessel. Instead, proposed Specification 3.1.7.1 requires 
all pressurizer safety valves to be operable above cold shutdown, 
and overpressure protection during cold shutdown is provided by 
existing Specification 3.1.8.2, Power Operated Relief Valves.
    The proposed Technical Specifications change also lists the lift 
settings for each of the primary and secondary system safety valves. 
This change will not affect the operation or function of the valves. 
Therefore, the probability and consequences of previously evaluated 
accidents will not be increased.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes to Technical Specifications will not affect 
the manner in which the plant operates. The proposed increase in 
pressurizer safety valve lift setting tolerance could change the 
pressure at which the valves open in an overpressurization event, 
but would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident. Since Technical Specification 3.1.8 addresses primary 
system overpressurization during cold shutdown, the proposed removal 
of the requirement for an operable pressurizer safety valve to be 
installed whenever the reactor head is on the vessel will not create 
[[Page 11131]] the possibility of a new overpressurization event 
during cold shutdown. The proposed change to list the lift settings 
for the individual primary and secondary safety valves will have no 
effect on the safety function of the valves. Therefore, the proposed 
changes 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 changes to Technical Specifications do not affect 
the DNB analyses that have been previously performed. The most 
limiting overpressurization event, loss of external load, has been 
conservatively analyzed accounting for the proposed changes and 
demonstrated that the primary and secondary system pressures remain 
within 110% of the design pressures. Overpressurization during cold 
shutdown is addressed by Technical Specification 3.1.8. 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: Van Wylen Library, Hope 
College, Holland, Michigan 49423.
    Attorney for licensee: Judd L. Bacon, Esquire, Consumers Power 
Company, 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson, Michigan 49201.
    NRC Project Director: John N. Hannon.

Consumers Power Company, Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant, Van Buren 
County, Michigan.

    Date of amendment request: February 10, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the Technical Specifications to allow a one time deferral of 
several 18-month interval surveillance tests until the upcoming 
scheduled refueling outage to avoid the necessity of imposing a plant 
shutdown solely for the sake of their performance.
    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:

    The following evaluation supports the finding that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed Technical 
Specifications (TS) would not:
    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Deferring surveillance testing will introduce no new operating 
conditions, change no equipment operating procedures, and change no 
plant systems or equipment. Therefore, operation of the facility in 
accordance with the proposed TS would not result in a significant 
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    Deferring surveillance testing of snubbers and instrument 
channels could allow minor degradations of snubber condition or 
small changes in instrument setpoints or calibration to progress 
some amount beyond that point which would occur with a shorter 
surveillance interval. A review of the recent test history for the 
subject surveillance indicates that no significant snubber 
degradation or instrument drift was found. It is not expected that, 
even with the proposed surveillance deferral, snubber conditions or 
instrument settings will be found to exceed conditions allowable by 
the Technical Specifications. Therefore, operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed TS would not result in a significant 
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously evaluated.
    Deferring surveillance testing will introduce no new operating 
conditions, change no equipment operating procedures, and change no 
plant systems or equipment. Therefore, operation of the facility in 
accordance with the proposed TS would 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.
    A review of past performance of the subject surveillance tests 
indicate that the requested deferral of testing would not have a 
significant effect on the results of the tests when they are 
performed prior to the startup for cycle 12. Most of the affected 
instrumentation is monitored each shift by channel checks, which 
would disclose major failures or significant drift. Therefore, 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed TS would 
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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 Power 
Company, 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson, Michigan 49201.
    NRC Project Director: John N. Hannon.

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: November 2, 1994.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
delete the content of the Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan 
(EPP) and modify License Conditions 2.C.(2) to delete that portion 
which refers to the EPP. Specifically, the requirements for non-
radiological environmental monitoring have been completed. The 
radiological environmental monitoring requirements have been 
incorporated into Appendix A (the Technical Specifications). There 
would be no impact on the continued safety of the McGuire station by 
deleting Appendix B.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    Deletion of the Environmental Protection Plan and modifying 
License Condition 2.C.(2) will have no impact on the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the changes 
will not have any impact upon the design or operation of any plant 
systems or components.
    The proposed revision will not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because 
the revision is administrative in nature and will not change the 
types and amounts of effluent that will be released.
    The proposed revision will not reduce a margin of safety because 
it is administrative in nature and will not effect the margin of 
safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications.
    Accordingly, this proposed changes does not involve a 
significant hazard.

    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. [[Page 11132]] 

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: January 18, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
relocate the requirements for the seismic instrumentation, 
meteorological instrumentation, and loose-part detection system from 
the Technical Specifications to the Selected Licensee Commitment (SCL) 
Manual. This will allow future changes to these controls to be 
performed under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. No changes are being 
made to the technical content of the affected Technical Specification 
pages.
    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. Relocation of the affected TS sections to the SLC Manual 
will have no effect on the probability of any accident occurring. In 
addition, the consequences of an accident will not be impacted since 
the above instrumentation will continue to be utilized in the same 
manner as before. No impact on the plant response to accidents will 
be created.

Criterion 2

    The requested amendments will not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated. No new accident causal mechanisms will be created as a 
result of relocating the affected TS requirements to the SLC Manual. 
Plant operation will not be affected by the proposed amendments and 
no new failure modes will be created.

Criterion 3

    The requested amendments will not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. No impact upon any plant safety 
margins will be created. Relocation of the affected TS requirements 
to the SLC Manual is consistent with the content of the Westinghouse 
RSTS [Revised Standard Technical Specifications], as the NRC did not 
require technical specification controls for the affected 
instrumentation in the RSTS. The proposed amendments are consistent 
with the NRC philosophy of encouraging utilities to propose 
amendments that are consistent with the content of the RSTS.
    Based upon the preceding analyses, Duke Power Company concludes 
that the requested amendments do not involve a significant hazards 
consideration.

    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.
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: January 18, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification Table 4.3-3 to allow the analog channel 
operational test interval for radiation monitoring instrumentation to 
be increased from monthly to quarterly. The proposed amendment changes 
would be consistent with the guidance in Generic Letter 93-05, ``Line-
Item Technical Specifications Improvements to Reduce Surveillance 
Requirements for Testing During Power Operation.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

Criterion 1

    The requested amendments will not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated. Decreasing the frequency of the radiation monitor analog 
channel operational test from monthly to quarterly will have no 
impact upon the probability or any accident, since the radiation 
monitors are not accident initiating equipment. Analysis of the 
previous test data * * * shows that no significant degradation of 
performance is to be expected by the decrease in frequency. 
Therefore, the requested amendments will have no adverse impact upon 
the consequences of any accident.

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 above, the radiation monitors are not accident 
initiating equipment. No new failure modes can be created from an 
accident standpoint. The plant will not be operated in a different 
manner.

Criterion 3

    The requested amendments will not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. Plant safety margins will be 
unaffected by the proposed changes. No safety equipment which is 
taken credit for in accident analyses will be affected by the 
requested amendments. The availability of the affected radiation 
monitors will be increased as a result of the proposed amendments 
because the monitors will not have to be made unavailable for 
testing as frequently. In addition, radiation monitor operating 
experience supports the proposed amendments. Finally, the proposed 
amendments are consistent with the NRC position and guidance set 
forth in NUREG-1366 and Generic Letter 93-05.
    Based upon the preceding analyses, Duke Power Company concludes 
that the requested amendments do not involve a significant hazards 
consideration.

    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.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: January 20, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments will 
relocate the operability requirements for the INCORE DETECTORS (TS 3/
4.3.3.2) to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, and revise Linear 
Heat Rate surveillance 4.2.1.4, and Special Test Exceptions 
surveillances 4.10.2.2, 4.10.4.2 (Unit 2 only), and 4.10.5.2, 
accordingly.
    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 changes are administrative in nature in that the 
specifications for [[Page 11133]] operation and surveillance of the 
Incore Instrumentation (ICI) System will be relocated from the 
Technical Specifications to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
for St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2. Changes to the system will be 
controlled by 10 CFR 50.59, and the safety analysis report is 
required to be updated pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e). Relocation of 
these requirements to the UFSAR is consistent with the NRC ``Final 
Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements for 
Nuclear Power Reactors'' published in the Federal Register (58 FR 
39132) dated July 22, 1993.
    Incore instrumentation is not an accident initiator nor a part 
of the success path(s) which function to mitigate accidents 
evaluated in the plant safety analyses. The proposed technical 
specification change does not involve any change to the 
configuration or method of operation of any plant equipment that is 
used to mitigate the consequences of an accident, nor do the changes 
alter any assumptions or conditions in any of the plant accident 
analyses. Therefore, 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.
    (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 to relocate the existing Technical 
Specification requirements for the Incore Instrumentation System to 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report will not change the 
physical plant or the modes of plant operation defined in the 
Facility License. The change does not involve the addition or 
modification of equipment nor does it alter the design or operation 
of 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 changes are administrative in nature in that 
operating and surveillance requirements for the Incore 
Instrumentation System will be relocated from the Technical 
Specifications to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report for St. 
Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2. The ICI system is not used to actuate 
safety-related equipment, provide interlocks, or otherwise perform 
automatic plant control functions. The system is used to monitor 
core power distribution parameters whose limits do involve a margin 
of safety; however, the ICI system itself makes no contribution to 
that margin of safety, and the power distribution limits will not be 
changed by the proposed amendment. Therefore, operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above discussion and the supporting Evaluation of 
Technical Specification changes, FPL has determined that the 
proposed license amendment involves no significant hazards 
consideration.

    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 Junior College 
Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 34954-9003.
    Attorney for licensee: Harold F. Reis, Esquire, Newman and 
Holtzinger, 1615 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
    NRC Project Director: David B. Matthews.

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: January 17, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to revise 
the technical specifications to reference Topical Report NF-TR-95-01 as 
the documentation of the licensee's proficiency in performing certain 
reload design calculations once the NRC has evaluated and approved NR-
TR-95-01.
    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 addition of the reference to FPL [Florida Power and Light 
Company] topical report which demonstrates FPL's ability to perform 
certain reload design calculations for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 is 
administrative in nature and has no impact on the probability or 
consequences of any Design Bases Event (DBE) occurrences previously 
evaluated. The reload design calculations will be performed using 
methodologies and computer codes approved by the NRC and poses no 
increase in the probability or consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) parameters will be 
evaluated every cycle to ensure proper compliance with the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). These limits will be evaluated 
in accordance with 10 CFR [Section] 50.59, which ensures that the 
reload will not involve an increase in the probability of 
occurrences or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
Title 10 CFR [Section] 50.59 (2) states that a proposed change 
involves an unreviewed safety question (i) 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. Consequently, since any change to 
the reload core design analysis must be evaluated relative to the 
more restrictive evaluation criterion of 10 CFR [Section] 50.59, 
then 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.
    (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 addition of the reference to FPL topical report which 
demonstrates FPL's ability to perform certain reload design 
calculations for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 is administrative in 
nature and has no impact, nor does it contribute in any way to the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms 
or limiting single failure events are introduced as a result of the 
proposed change.
    The generation of the Axial Flux Difference, Rod Bank Insertion 
limits and K(Z) curve will be performed using NRC-approved 
methodology and are submitted to the NRC, as a revision to the COLR, 
to allow the NRC staff to trend. The Technical Specifications will 
continue to require operation within the core operating limits and 
appropriate actions will be taken if these limits are exceeded.
    Title 10 CFR [Section] 50.59 permits a licensee to make changes 
in the facility as described in the safety analysis report without 
prior Commission approval, provided that the proposed changes does 
not involve an unreviewed safety question. 10 CFR [Section] 50.59 
(2) states that a proposed change involves an unreviewed safety 
question (ii) if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a 
different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis 
report may be created. Consequently, since any change to the reload 
core design analysis must be evaluated relative to the more 
restrictive evaluation criterion of 10 CFR [Section] 50.59, then 
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.
    (3) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendments would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    The margin of safety is not affected by FPL performing the 
reload design calculations for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. The 
supporting Technical Specification values are defined by the 
accident analyses which are performed to conservatively bound the 
operating conditions defined by the Technical Specifications. The 
development of the limits for future reloads will continue to 
conform to the methodology described in NRC approved documentation. 
In addition, each future reload will involve a 10 CFR [Section] 
50.59 [[Page 11134]] review to assure that operation of the units 
within the cycle specific limits will not involve a reduction in a 
margin of safety. 10 CFR [Section] 50.59 (2) states that a proposed 
change involves an unreviewed safety question (iii) if the margin of 
safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is 
reduced. Consequently, since any change to the reload core design 
analysis must be evaluated relative to the more restrictive 
evaluation criterion of 10 CFR [Section] 50.59, then operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The 
NRC staff, however, considers that the licensee's statements relative 
to 10 CFR Section 50.59 evaluations to be performed in the future are 
not relevant to the proposed no significant hazards determination.
    Local Public Document Room location: Florida International 
University, University Park, Miami, Florida 33199.
    Attorney for licensee: Harold F. Reis, Esquire, Newman and Holtzer, 
P.C., 1615 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
    NRC Project Director: David B. Matthews.
IES Utilities Inc., Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center, Linn 
County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: October 28, 1994.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment revises 
the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) Operating License by deleting a 
condition of the license that requires a ``Plan for Integrating 
Scheduling of Plant Modifications for the Duane Arnold Energy Center'' 
(the Plan).
    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 provided below:

    (1) The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. No physical changes to the facility will occur 
as a result of this amendment. Work activities will continue to 
receive the appropriate level of review in accordance with DAEC 
procedures and practices. The organizational structure that controls 
and manages these activities remains unchanged and will assure that 
activities are prioritized and performed in a manner consistent with 
plant safety. The proposed amendment removes an administrative 
burden that is no longer required.
    (2) The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated. No changes to the physical design and/or operation of the 
plant will occur as a result of this amendment. The processes by 
which activities are planned, prioritized, and controlled are not 
affected. The appropriate level of technical review and management 
oversight continue to be performed in accordance with existing 
procedures and practices to assure that activities are performed in 
a manner consistent with plant safety.
    (3) The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. As stated earlier, no changes to 
the physical design and/or operation of any plant systems will occur 
as a result of this amendment. Work activities will continue to 
receive the appropriate technical review and management oversight to 
assure that activities are prioritized and performed in a manner 
consistent with plant safety. The amendment removes an 
administrative burden that is no longer required.
    Based on the above, we have determined that the proposed 
amendment will not involve a significant hazards consideration.

    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: Cedar Rapids Public Library, 
500 First Street, S.E., Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401.
    Attorney for licensee: Jack Newman, Kathleen H. Shea, Morgan, Lewis 
& Bouckins, 1800 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.
    NRC Project Director: Leif J. Norrholm.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station Unit No. 1, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: January 24, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification 3.4.1, ``Leakage Rate,'' to reduce the 
allowable leakage rate of the reactor building from 2000 cubic feet per 
minute (cfm) to 1600 cfm.
    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:

    The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 1, in accordance with the 
proposed amendment, will not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Secondary containment and RBEVS [Reactor Building Emergency 
Ventilation System] are not initiators or precursors to an accident. 
Secondary containment provides a pressure boundary, with limited in-
leakage, for the purpose of preventing a ground level unfiltered 
release of radioactivity. RBEVS responds to accidents involving 
release of radioactivity to the secondary containment by maintaining 
a negative pressure inside secondary containment and by providing an 
elevated release. Therefore, a change to the Reactor Building 
leakage rate cannot affect the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Although the proposed change reduces the Reactor Building 
leakage rate from 2000 cfm to 1600 cfm consistent with system 
design, there is no effect on the radiological consequences of any 
previously analyzed accident since the radiological analysis does 
not assume exfiltration. Therefore, the Technical Specification 
change does not significantly increase the consequences of a 
previously evaluated accident.
    The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 1, in accordance with the 
proposed amendment, will not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change to the Reactor Building leakage rate from 
2000 cfm to 1600 cfm does not involve any accident precursors or 
initiators. During an accident involving a release of radioactivity 
to the secondary containment, the RBEVS would be operable and 
provide filtration of containment atmosphere prior to release to the 
environment. This change does not involve any physical modifications 
to the system, thus the system will operate as designed. Therefore, 
the proposed Technical Specification change will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 1, in accordance with the 
proposed amendment, will not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    The proposed change in Reactor Building in-leakage from 2000 cfm 
to 1600 cfm in Specification 3.4.1 and the associated basis is to be 
consistent with system design and reflect the leakage rate 
associated with approximately one building air volume change per 
day. The resulting accident analysis remains unchanged since the 
radiological analysis does not assume any exfiltration. Therefore, 
the proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical 
Specification.
    Therefore, as determined by the above analysis, this proposed 
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

    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 [[Page 11135]] involves no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Local Public Document Room location: Reference and Documents 
Department, Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New 
York 13126.
    Attorney for licensee: Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston & 
Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502.
    NRC Project Director: Ledyard B. Marsh.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station Unit No. 1, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: February 1, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.13, ``Remote Shutdown Panels.'' 
TS 3.6.13 currently requires that if the valve controls or monitoring 
instrumentation on the Remote Shutdown Panels are inoperable, they must 
be restored to an operable status within 24 hours or the plant shall be 
shut down. The proposed change would require inoperable valve control 
functions be restored to an operable status within 30 days or the plant 
shall be shut down. The proposed change would also specify that 
required inoperable monitoring instrumentation functions be restored to 
an operable status within 30 days or that an alternate method of 
monitoring the parameter be established within 30 days and the required 
function be restored to an operable status within 90 days or the plant 
shall be shut down.
    The proposed amendment would also make minor editorial changes to 
TS Table 3.6.13-1 so that the table entries would be consistent with 
the proposed revisions to TS 3.6.13.
    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:

    The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 1, in accordance with the 
proposed amendment, will not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The remote shutdown panel monitoring instruments and controls 
are not initiators or precursors to an accident. The remote shutdown 
panels provide the operator with sufficient monitoring instruments 
and controls to place and maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 
condition from a location other than the control room. Therefore, 
the proposed changes to Specification 3.6.13, ``Remote Shutdown 
Panels,'' cannot affect the probability of a previously evaluated 
accident.
    The proposed changes, in part, require that one channel (on 
either panel) for each function be operable. This change could 
potentially avoid an unnecessary plant shutdown without affecting an 
operator's ability to cope with a control room evacuation. One 
channel of each function is adequate to assure a safe shutdown. The 
proposed changes would also allow 30 days to restore an inoperable 
function to an operable status. As indicated in the ITS [Improved 
Standard Technical Specifications], the allowed time of 30 days is 
acceptable based on operating experience and the low probability of 
an event that would require evacuation of the control room. With one 
or more monitoring instrument functions inoperable, the proposed 
change gives an operator an additional option. Specifically, the 
operator is allowed 30 days to establish an alternate method of 
monitoring the parameter and 90 days to restore the function to 
operable status. The use of an alternate method is acceptable since 
it will provide the operator with indication of the parameter of 
interest. The remote shutdown panels will not be required to be 
operable in hot shutdown because the plant is already subcritical 
and in a condition of reduced reactor coolant inventory energy. 
Because this Specification no longer applies to hot shutdown and to 
be consistent with the guidance provided in the ITS, Specification 
3.6.13.d will require that the plant be brought to a hot shutdown 
condition (versus cold shutdown condition) in 12 hours. As indicated 
in the ITS, the 12-hour completion time is reasonable based on 
operating experience. The Bases Section to 3.6.13 and 4.6.13 was 
revised to be consistent with the proposed changes to the 
Specification. The Bases currently indicates that one remote 
shutdown panel is required to be operable. As explained above, one 
channel of each required function is required to maintain remote 
shutdown operability. In summary, the proposed changes will not 
affect the ability of the Remote Shutdown System to provide the 
operator with sufficient instrumentation and controls to place and 
maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition from a location 
other than the control room. Therefore, the consequences of an event 
requiring a control room evacuation will not significantly increase.
    Editorial changes were made to Table 3.6.13-1 to be consistent 
with the changes made to the Specification. Specifically, the word 
``INSTRUMENT'' was changed to ``FUNCTION'' and the words ``PANEL 
MONITORING'' were changed to the words ``PANELS FUNCTIONS.'' These 
changes make it clear that one channel of each function, on either 
panel is acceptable to maintain operability. The emergency condenser 
condensate return valve control and motor-operated steam supply 
valves control were relocated from Specification 3.6.13.b to Table 
3.6.13-1 to be consistent with the proposed changes.
    Based on the above, the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated are not significantly increased.
    The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 1, in accordance with the 
proposed amendment, will not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The changes do not introduce any new accident precursors and do 
not involve any alterations to plant configurations which could 
initiate a new or different kind of accident. The proposed changes 
require that one channel of each function be operable to assure the 
remote shutdown panels can meet their intended function. No changes 
have been made which will affect the operation of the remote 
shutdown panels in a way which would create a new or different kind 
of accident. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 1, in accordance with the 
proposed amendment, will not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    The proposed changes will not affect the ability of the Remote 
Shutdown System to provide the operator with sufficient 
instrumentation and controls to place and maintain the plant in a 
safe shutdown condition from a location other than the control room. 
The ability to respond to a control room evacuation is maintained 
with one channel operable for each required function. The allowed 
outage time of 30 days is acceptable based on operating experience 
and the low probability of an event requiring control room 
evacuation. 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 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: Reference and Documents 
Department, Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New 
York 13126.
    Attorney for licensee: Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston & 
Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502.
    NRC Project Director: Ledyard B. Marsh.

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone 
Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: January 10, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment request 
would revise Technical Specifications by deleting the power range, 
neutron flux, high negative rate trip from Tables 2.2-1, 3.3-1, and 
4.3-1, and delete the associated Bases Section 2.0. [[Page 11136]] 
    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 would not involve an SHC because the 
changes would not:
    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The deletion of the power range, neutron flux, high negative 
rate trip will not adversely affect plant operations. As has been 
presented and accepted by the NRC Staff in previous docketed 
correspondence, the dropped RCCA [rod cluster control assembly] 
accident analysis does not rely on this trip to safely shut down the 
plant. The safety analysis of the plant is unaffected by the 
proposed changes. Since the safety analysis is unaffected, the 
calculated radiologicalreleases associated with the analysis are not 
affected. Therefore, the proposed changes will not increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The reactor trip system is used to mitigate accidents. There 
have been instances, during calibration of these units, where a 
single channel has generated a trip signal. Leaving this in place 
when it is not necessary could, therefore, cause a reactor trip. The 
deletion of one trip function will, therefore, slightly decease, not 
increase, this probability.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    The reactor trip system is used to mitigate accidents, and the 
only way that it can initiate an event is by causing the reactor to 
trip when it is unnecessary. This possibility of the generation of a 
false trip signal has already been evaluated in the safety analysis. 
This modification will physically remove or disable the power range, 
neutron flux trip and will therefore decrease the possibility for 
the generation of a false trip signal. Therefore, the proposed 
change 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 change which deletes the power range, neutron flux, 
high negative rate trip will have no impact on the margin of safety. 
The current safety analysis for Millstone Unit No. 3 does not credit 
this trip for any events; therefore, removal of this trip from the 
technical specifications will not affect the margin of safety for 
any analyzed events.

    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 Resource Center, 
Three Rivers Community-Technical College, Thames Valley Campus, 574 New 
London Turnpike, Norwich, CT 06360.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. L. M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Northeast Utilities Service Company, Post Office Box 270, Hartford, CT 
06141-0270.
    NRC Project Director: Phillip F. McKee.

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone 
Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: January 23, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) by 1) adding a new Section 3/
4.5.5 which provides a limiting condition for operation, an action 
statement, a surveillance requirement, and a corresponding bases 
section, for the trisodium phosphate (TSP) baskets which will be 
installed in the next refueling outage; 2) deleting Section 3/4.6.2.3 
and Bases 3/4.6.2.3 related to the spray additive system which are no 
longer needed since the chemical addition tank is being abandoned; and 
3) updating Index Pages viii, ix, and xiv to reflect the above changes.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration (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 Evaluated.
    The plant change affects the chemical composition of the QSS 
[quench spray system] flow and the method of sump pH control, which 
are important for containment heat removal/pressure mitigation (MSLB 
and LOCA) [main steamline break and loss-of coolant accident] and 
fission product removal (LOCA). However, this change does not affect 
the probability of occurrence of these accidents. Since the TSP 
baskets are passive devices located inside the containment, they 
cannot initiate a transient or affect the probability of occurrence 
of any previously evaluated accident.
    The design change will not adversely affect the radiological 
doses for the DBA [design basis accident] LOCA at the Exclusion Area 
Boundary, Low Population Zone, Millstone Unit No. 3 Control Room, 
Millstone Unit No. 2 Control Room, and the Millstone Technical 
Support Center. Also, the change will not adversely affect the 
calculated peak clad temperature (PCT) for the DBA LOCA.
    2. Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident 
from any Previously Analyzed.
    The change does not create a malfunction that is different from 
those previously evaluated. The TSP baskets are passive devices that 
have minimal impact on any other systems except through water 
chemistry. The change in water chemistry does not adversely affect 
any safety systems. The installation of the TSP baskets and the 
abandonment of the CAT [chemical addition tank] will not change the 
probability of a malfunction of safety-related equipment.
    Potential malfunctions relating to the TSP powder, the 12 
baskets which hold the TSP powder, the QSS and other systems, and 
equipment credited in the safety analysis were evaluated and 
determined not to be adversely affected by the change. Additionally, 
the transient pH behavior of the spray flow will not adversely 
affect metals, coatings and elastomers in the containment, and the 
performance of associated safety functions is not affected.
    Finally, the change in the chemical composition of the QSS 
solution will not affect the operability of this system or its 
ability for containment heat removal and pressure mitigation.
    3. Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
    The design changes do not adversely affect the ability of the 
QSS to perform the function of containment heat removal, pressure 
mitigation and fission product (iodine) retention. The design 
changes do not adversely affect any equipment credited in the safety 
analysis. Also, the design changes to not increase the calculated 
peak clad temperature (PCT) or the offsite doses due to the design 
basis LOCA. Therefore, there is no impact on the margin of safety as 
specified in the technical specifications.

    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 Resource Center, 
Three Rivers Community-Technical College, Thames Valley Campus, 574 New 
London Turnpike, Norwich, CT 06360.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. L. M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Northeast Utilities Service Company, Post Office Box 270, Hartford, CT 
06141-0270.
    NRC Project Director: Phillip F. McKee.

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone 
Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: January 24, 1995. [[Page 11137]] 
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request would 
revise the Technical Specification Section 3.2.3.1.a and Table 2.2-1 to 
decrease the acceptance criterion for measured reactor coolant system 
(RCS) flow rate from 387,480 gallons per minute (gpm) to 371,920 gpm.
    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 
Consequence of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
    An evaluation of the 4% decrease in the RCS total flow rate 
limit has shown that the change does not significantly impact the 
design basis analyses. Therefore, the change will not increase the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    There are no actual plant changes that will result from this 
technical specification change. Instead, the technical specification 
requirement for minimum total RCS flow rate is being changed to 
provide operational benefit without compromising safety. Since there 
are no plant changes, there is no effect on the probability of 
occurrence of previously evaluated accidents.
    The change will have a negligible impact on the small break loss 
of coolant accident (LOCA) and large break LOCA analyses. The PCT 
[peak cladding temperature] acceptance criteria will continue to be 
met with the assumption of a 4% reduction in RCS flow rate.
    For the steam generator tube rupture event, both the FSAR [Final 
Safety Analysis Report] offsite dose analysis and the margin of 
steam generator (SG) overfill were evaluated. It was determined that 
the 4% reduction in RCS flow rate will not adversely affect the 
offsite doses or the margin to SG overfill and, therefore, the FSAR 
conclusions remain unchanged.
    In the evaluation of non-LOCA transients, the DNB [departure 
from nucleate boiling] is the most affected parameter due to a 
change in flow rate. It was concluded that the 4% reduction in RCS 
flow was acceptable and there was margin to the DNB limit.
    It is concluded that there is sufficient margin to the system 
pressure, PCT and DNB limits to offset the effect of the 4% flow 
rate decrease and the calculated radiological releases associated 
with the analysis are not affected. Therefore, there is no effect on 
the consequences of previously evaluated accidents.
    2. Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident 
from any Previously Analyzed.
    The low loop flow trip setpoint specified in Technical 
Specification Table 2.2-1 is set as a fraction of total flow. The 
flow fraction is not being changed and no hardware changes are 
required due to the reduction in minimum flow. Also, the reduction 
in minimum flow will not change the operation of any plant equipment 
and it does not modify plant operation.
    Therefore, the reduction in minimum flow does not introduce any 
new failure modes or malfunctions and it does not create the 
potential for a new unanalyzed accident.
    3. Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
    The proposed 4% decrease in the technical specification limit 
for total RCS flow rate will not adversely affect the results of the 
FSAR accident analysis, and it is concluded that this change is 
safe. The change does not adversely affect any equipment credited in 
the safety analysis, and it does not affect the probability of 
occurrence of any plant accident. Also, the change has a negligible 
impact on the PCT, and it does not increase the offsite doses or 
decrease the DNB below its acceptance limit.
    Therefore, the change does not have any significant impact on 
the protective boundaries, and there is no reduction in the margin 
of safety as specified in the technical specifications.

    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 Resource Center, 
Three Rivers Community-Technical College, Thames Valley Campus, 574 New 
London Turnpike, Norwich, CT 06360.
    Attorney for licensee: Ms. L. M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Northeast Utilities Service Company, Post Office Box 270, Hartford, CT 
06141-0270.
    NRC Project Director: Phillip F. McKee.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: January 9, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment to the 
technical specifications (TSs) would delete requirements for the toxic 
gas monitoring system (TGMS) as contained in TS 2.22 and TS 3.1, Table 
3-3, item 29.
    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 previously evaluated accidents affected by this change are 
the on-site and off-site toxic chemical releases. These events have 
been re-evaluated for this proposed change and have been shown to 
meet the applicable regulatory screening criteria. The deterministic 
analyses performed show that the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.78 
for control room habitability are met for on-site and most off-site 
chemicals. On-site chemical sources originally present when the 
toxic gas monitoring system was installed have been removed from 
site or determined not to exceed the deterministic analysis 
screening requirements. For those off-site chemical releases which 
did not meet the deterministic screening criteria a probabilistic 
analysis was performed. The probabilistic analysis performed in 
support of this proposed change shows that the probability of an 
off-site chemical release leading to 10 CFR 100 consequences is 
orders of magnitude less than the SRP [Standard Review Plan] 2.2.3 
guidelines. These results show that there is no significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    (2) The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.
    Only events involving chemicals for which the TGMS provides an 
automatic detection/isolation function are affected by this change. 
As stated above, the potential events involving these chemicals have 
been re-evaluated using the appropriate regulatory guidance and 
shown to satisfy either the deterministic screening criteria of RG 
[Regulatory Guide] 1.78, or to be probabilistically insignificant 
compared to the guidelines of SRP Section 2.2.3. These results show 
that the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. Therefore, 
the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.
    (3) The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The margin of safety is defined by the regulatory basis for the 
existing TGMS, namely NUREG-0737, Item III.D.3.4. The analysis 
provided to support this proposed change follows the regulatory 
guidelines of RG 1.78 and SRP Section 2.2.3, as specified in NUREG-
0737, Item III.D.3.4. The analysis shows that the applicable 
regulatory criteria are met and 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: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby, and MacRae, 1875 
Connecticut [[Page 11138]] Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009-5728.
    NRC Project Director: Theodore R. Quay.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, 
California

    Date of amendment requests: February 6, 1995 (Reference LAR 95-01).
    Description of amendment requests: The proposed amendments would 
revise the combined Technical Specifications (TS) for the Diablo Canyon 
Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, to change TS 3/4.9.14.1, ``Spent Fuel 
Assembly Storage,'' TS 3/4.9.14.2, ``Spent Fuel Pool Boron 
Concentration,'' TS 5.3.1, ``Reactor Core--Fuel Assemblies,'' and TS 
5.6.1, ``Fuel Storage--Criticality,'' and add new TS 3/4.9.14.3, 
``Spent Fuel Assembly Storage--Spent Fuel Pool Region 1.'' The specific 
TS changes proposed are as follows:
    (1) The proposed changes to TS 3/4.9.14 are:
    (a) TS 3.9.14.1 and Figure 3.9-2 would be revised to allow the 
storage of spent fuel assemblies with initial enrichments up to 5.0 
weight percent uranium-235 (U-235) in Region 2 of the spent fuel pool 
(SFP). Fuel pellet diameter would be considered in combination with 
initial enrichment and cumulative burnup.
    (b) Editorial corrections to the titles of TS 3/4.9.14.1 and 3/
4.9.14.2 would be made for consistency with the TS format.
    (2) New TS 3/4.9.14.3 would be added. The new TS would include:
    (a) Requirements for acceptable fuel storage in Region 1 of the 
SFP.
    (b) An action statement, similar to that for TS 3.9.14.1, requiring 
suspension of all fuel movement and crane operations except to move the 
noncomplying fuel assemblies into an acceptable pattern. The action 
statement also requires verification of SFP boron concentration at 
least once per 8 hours.
    (c) A requirement, similar to that for TS 4.9.14.1, for an 
evaluation that considers enrichment, boron content, and cumulative 
burnup of each fuel assembly before storage in Region 1 of the SFP.
    (d) New Figure 3.9-3 for use in determining the acceptability of 
storing fuel in Region 1 of the SFP.
    (3) The proposed changes to TS 5.3.1 are:
    (a) The number of fuel rods in each fuel assembly, nominal length 
of each fuel rod, and maximum fuel enrichment would be removed.
    (b) The current allowance for fuel rod substitutions as justified 
by analysis would be clarified to specify that the analysis be 
performed using NRC staff-approved methods.
    (c) An allowance to use a limited number of lead test assemblies in 
nonlimiting core locations would be added.
    (d) The current specification requiring Zircaloy-4 fuel cladding 
would be changed to allow Zircaloy-4 or ZIRLO cladding.
    (4) The proposed changes to TS 5.6 are:
    (a) TS 5.6.1.1 would be renumbered TS 5.6.1 and the word 
``borated'' would be replaced with ``unborated.''
    (b) A new requirement would be added to specify the maximum fuel 
enrichment allowed to be stored in the fuel racks.
    (c) TS 5.6.1.2 would be deleted.
    (5) The associated Bases would also be appropriately revised.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    a. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Analyses were performed to verify that an increase in enrichment 
of the fuel from 4.5 weight percent U-235 to 5.0 weight percent U-
235 would not result in an inadvertent criticality event in the new 
fuel storage racks or the SFP. The analyses indicate that for the 
new fuel racks, the k<INF>eff will remain below 0.95 if flooded with 
non-borated water, and below 0.98 if flooded with optimum-density 
aqueous foam. The analyses indicate that for the spent fuel racks, 
assuming credit for soluble boron in accident scenarios, the 
k<INF>eff will remain below 0.95 as required.
    The increase in the fuel enrichment from 4.5 weight percent U-
235 to 5.0 weight percent U-235 does not change any of the external 
dimensional characteristics of the fuel element, the fuel storage 
racks, or the SFP itself. The accidents originally evaluated 
considered those events that could lead to fuel damage and release 
of radioactive material primarily from mechanical means, such as 
physical impact on the fuel or the SFP. Because the physical design 
and methods of operation are the same as previously evaluated, there 
is no change in the probability of occurrence of such events.
    The maximum spent fuel gap activity and the resulting offsite 
dose consequences after a postulated fuel handling accident are 
primarily dependent on fuel burnup, and are not significantly 
affected by an increase in fuel enrichment. For up to 5.0 weight 
percent U-235 and 60,000 MWD/MTU burnup, NUREG/CR-5009 indicates 
that fuel handling accident offsite doses could increase by a factor 
of 1.2, which indicates that doses would still remain within 10 CFR 
Part 100 limits.
    The Generic Letter 90-02 Supplement 1 change to TS 5.3.1 
clarifies the requirements associated with fuel reconstitution. It 
does not change the methodology that would be used to reconstitute 
fuel.
    The use of ZIRLO cladding will not increase the probability or 
consequences of an accident, since it has improved mechanical 
properties such as a lower corrosion rate and reduced radiation-
induced growth.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    b. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The physical and mechanical parameters associated with the fuel 
assemblies and spent fuel racks are the same as previously 
evaluated. Therefore, any malfunctions related to the physical 
aspects of fuel storage are the same as previously evaluated.
    The conditions for fuel storage in the proposed new TS 3.9.14.3 
provide new criteria for locations where a fuel assembly could be 
incorrectly placed. However, the incorrect placement of a fuel 
assembly has been analyzed, and would not cause an inadvertent 
criticality or any other accident.
    The change to 5.0 weight percent U-235 does not result in 
physical alterations or changes to the operation of the plant, or 
change the method by which any safety-related system performs its 
function. The use of ZIRLO cladding does not result in a significant 
change to the plant.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    c. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    The acceptance criteria of a <INF>keff of 0.95 (or 0.98 for the 
new fuel rack optimum moderation accident) provides the margin to 
criticality. Analyses were performed that conclude that the proposed 
changes to allow up to 5.0 weight percent U-235 in the new and spent 
fuel racks meet the acceptance criteria. The use of ZIRLO cladding 
will not reduce the protection of the public health or safety, as 
indicated in the NRC's revisions to 10 CFR 50.44 and 50.46 (57 FR 
39355).
    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 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Local Public Document Room location: California Polytechnic State 
University, Robert E. Kennedy Library, Government Documents and Maps 
[[Page 11139]] Department, San Luis Obispo, California 93407.
    Attorney for licensee: Christopher J. Warner, Esq., Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Project Director: Theodore R. Quay.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power 
Plant, Unit 3, Humboldt County, California

    Date of amendment request: November 23, 1994.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications Section VI, ``Waste Disposal 
Systems,'' regarding radioactive effluent limitations and the 
conditions for automatically pumping the contents of the reactor 
caisson sump to the outfall canal.
    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 revisions to the HBPP Technical Specifications 
remove the ambiguity in the guidelines for directing caisson sump 
discharges to the outfall canal. Additionally, the proposed 
revisions will modify Section VI to be consistent with the guidance 
provided by NRC Draft Generic Letter for 10 CFR 20 Modification to 
Technical Specifications (58 FR 68171, dated December 23, 1993). 
These changes in effluent limits are not related to the probability 
or consequences of an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 revisions to the HBPP Technical Specifications are 
administrative in nature and do not change the method by which any 
safety-related system performs its function.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 proposed revisions to the HBPP Technical Specifications do 
not affect the margin of safety associated with parameters for any 
accident analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    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: Humboldt County Library, 636 F 
Street, Eureka, California 95501.
    Attorney for licensee: Christopher J. Warner, Esquire, Pacific Gas 
& Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Project Director: Seymour H. Weiss.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power 
Plant, Unit 3, Humboldt County, California

    Date of amendment request: November 23, 1994.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Technical Specifications Section VII.C, Plant Staff, to 
decrease the minimum staff requirements for the shift operating 
organization from five to two persons.
    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 probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated will not be affected by the change in plant staffing. The 
plant staff manning requirements for the shift operating 
organization are being reduced to reflect the condition of the plant 
in a SAFSTOR mode. Previously evaluated accidents do not require 
operator actions to mitigate or reduce the consequences of 
occurrence. Consequently, the change will not affect the probability 
or consequences of an accident occurring.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed revisions to the HBPP Technical Specifications are 
administrative in nature. Further, there would not be any change in 
equipment or system function or operation.
    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 proposed revisions to the HBPP Technical Specifications do 
not affect the margin of safety of any accident analysis since they 
do not affect the parameters for any accident analysis, and they 
have no effect on the current operating methodologies or actions 
that govern plant performance.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    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: Humboldt County Library, 636 F 
Street, Eureka, California 95501.
    Attorney for licensee: Christopher J. Warner, Esquire, Pacific Gas 
& Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Project Director: Seymour H. Weiss.

PECO Energy Company, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Delmarva 
Power and Light Company, and Atlantic City Electric Company, Docket No. 
50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit No. 3, York County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendment: January 13, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes revise 
Tables 3.7.1 and 3.7.4 to reflect a reduction in the number of primary 
containment power operated outboard valves for the Traversing Incore 
Probe (TIP) probes, and a redesignation of the containment penetration 
numbers for the TIP ball, shear, and check valves. The proposed changes 
are a result of PBAPS Modification P00068.
    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 TIP system does not serve as an initiator or contributor to 
any accidents previously evaluated. The system provides a means of 
calibrating the Local Power Range Monitors and supports thermal 
limit calculations. The new system performs the same function as the 
old one. It will provide improved reliability and added redundancy 
by allowing a complete flux mapping if a detector or drive failure 
were to occur.
    Installation of Modification P00068 and its operation will not 
degrade any active or passive equipment that responds to an 
accident. These changes do not decrease the 
[[Page 11140]] effectiveness of equipment relied upon to mitigate 
the previously evaluated accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The modification is considered an enhancement to the TIP system 
and does not serve as an initiator or contributor to any of the 
accidents previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not 
introduce a new mode of plant operation. The new system, like the 
old one, is designed to keep the ball valves closed upon reset of 
the Primary Containment Isolation System (PCIS) logic. The new TIP 
control console will respond to a PCIS isolation signal in the same 
manner as the old system.
    Implementation of the proposed changes will not affect the 
design function or configuration of any component or introduce any 
new operating scenarios or failure modes or accident initiation.
    Modification P00068 will not impair or prevent safety systems 
from performing their safety function. It will not make any changes 
to the design function of the TIP system. The classification of the 
TIP ball and shear valves and their control circuitry will not 
change as a result of this modification.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The TIP system does not serve as an initiator or contributor to 
any accidents evaluated in the SAR [safety analysis report]. 
Modification P00068 is considered an enhancement to the existing TIP 
system and does not change its design function. The reduction in the 
number of containment penetrations from five to three does not 
represent a reduction in a margin of safety because of additional 
indexers in the new system. The proposed changes do not adversely 
affect the assumptions or sequence of events used in any accident 
analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a reduction in a 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Local Public Document Room location: Government Publications 
Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, (REGIONAL DEPOSITORY) Education 
Building, Walnut Street and Commonwealth Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania 17105.
    Attorney for Licensee: J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire, Sr. V.P. and 
General Counsel, PECO Energy Company, 2301 Market Street, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19101.
    NRC Project Director: John F. Stolz.

Power Authority of the State of New York, Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: June 13, 1994.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would remove 
license condition 2.E from the Facility Operating License. License 
Condition 2.E incorporated the requirements of U.S. Department of 
Interior publication ``Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission 
Systems''--1970, which applies to the construction cleanup, 
restoration, and maintenance of transmission lines.
    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:

    Operation of the FitzPatrick plant in accordance with the 
proposed Amendment would not involve a significant hazards 
consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92, since it would not:
    (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change will remove a license condition unrelated to 
nuclear safety. License condition 2.E incorporated into the 
Operating License the requirements of U.S. Department of Interior 
publication ``Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission 
Systems''--1970. The goal of this standard is to ``safeguard 
aesthetic and environmental values within the constraints imposed by 
the current state of high-voltage transmission technology.'' License 
condition 2.E addresses the preservation of the environment and 
natural resources. Removing this condition from the Facility 
Operating License has no bearing on plant safety or the health and 
safety of the public considering its non-nuclear nature. The 
transmission line right-of-ways maintained by the [Power] Authority 
[of the State of New York] are subject to regulation by other State 
and Federal Agencies. Removal of this license condition will not 
affect operation of safety related structures, systems or components 
nor affect the quality assurance program at the FitzPatrick plant. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in 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.
    License condition 2.E of the James A. FitzPatrick Plant 
Operating License applies to the construction cleanup, restoration, 
and maintenance of transmission lines. The Authority's transmission 
lines are managed under guidelines based on the ``Generic 
Transmission Line Right-of-Way Management'' plan requirements. The 
requirements imposed by the plan on the FitzPatrick transmission 
line right-of-ways exceed those of the U.S. Department of Interior 
publication referenced in license condition 2.E in both scope and 
details. Therefore, implementing the proposed change will not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
    (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    License condition 2.E of the James A. FitzPatrick Plant 
Operating License applies to the construction cleanup, restoration, 
and maintenance of transmission lines. The requirements imposed by 
this license condition are unrelated to nuclear safety. Continued 
operation of the plant without Condition 2.E 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: Reference and Documents 
Department, Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New 
York 13126.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Charles M. Pratt, 1633 Broadway, New 
York, New York 10019.
    NRC Project Director: Ledyard B. Marsh.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: December 16, 1994; supplemented February 
10, 1995 (TS 94-07).
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would reduce 
the maximum allowed power levels and more clearly specify the plant 
conditions allowed by the technical specifications for operation with 
one or more main steam safety valves inoperable. In addition, the Bases 
would be revised to reflect these changes and incorporate the revised 
methodology used to establish the neutron flux setpoints.
    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:

    TVA has evaluated the proposed technical specification (TS) 
change and has determined that it does not represent a significant 
hazards consideration based on criteria established in 10 CFR 
50.92(c). Operation of [[Page 11141]] Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) 
in accordance with the proposed amendment will not:
    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    This change reduces the power level at which the reactor may be 
operated with one or more main steam safety valves (MSSVs) 
inoperable, to ensure that the secondary system is not 
overpressurized during the most severe pressurization transient of 
the secondary side. Additionally, this change will combine the TS 
action statements for 3- and 4-loop operation with one or more MSSVs 
inoperable, revise the mode requirements and times of Action 
Statement 3.7.1.1.a, and correct a reference in the bases section to 
Table 3.7-1. Reduction of the high neutron flux (HNF) trip setpoint 
will continue to be used as the means to ensure that the required 
reactor power level reductions are met. Mode 3 will be limited to 
application when the reactor trip breakers (RTB) are closed. Lack of 
NIS trip setpoint adjustments with the RTB open has no effect on the 
accident analysis. There is no change to the function of the MSSVs 
by the proposed change. This change will not alter any accident 
analysis assumptions or results for SQN. The proposed change will 
reduce the amount of relief capacity required to mitigate the 
consequences of the transient by reducing the total amount of energy 
in the primary system. Therefore, this change will not increase the 
probability of an accident.
    This change is consistent with current SQN accident analysis 
assumptions for the MSSVs and does not change the containment 
response for any design basis event. Therefore, no change in the 
mitigation of an accident will result from this proposed change and 
no change will occur in the consequences of any accident currently 
analyzed.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously analyzed.
    Inadvertent opening of a MSSV is currently analyzed as an 
initiating event for accidental depressurization of the main steam 
system. The proposed change does not alter the valves or any other 
plant component. The valves will continue to perform as analyzed in 
current accident analyses. The proposed change will not create the 
possibility for any new or different kind of accident.
    By retaining the use of the HNF trip setpoint reduction, no 
change is being proposed in the methodology used to ensure that 
power reductions are carried out; therefore, this will not create 
the possibility of placing the plant into any new unanalyzed 
condition. Not adjusting the Nuclear Instrumentation System trip 
setpoint with the RTBs open will not create an accident. The 
existing accident analysis is still bounding.
    Combining the separate action statements for 3- and 4-loop 
operation into a single action does not create the possibility for a 
new or different kind of accident. Operation with 4 loops will 
continue to be required in Modes 1 and 2 by TS 3.4.1.1.
    Operation with less than 4 loops will continue to be governed by 
TS 3.4.1.2 in Mode 3 and TS 3.4.1.3 in Mode 4. This change will not 
place the plant in a configuration not currently bounded by existing 
accident analysis.
    Revising the mode requirements and their associated times, 
consistent with the requirements in NUREG-1431, will continue to 
ensure that if the unit is unable to comply with the limiting 
condition for operation, the unit will begin an orderly shutdown 
until a mode is reached where the specification is not applicable.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change reduces the total energy of the reactor 
coolant system that will ensure the ability of the MSSVs to perform 
their intended function as assumed in current accident analyses. 
This change has been evaluated on a generic basis for Westinghouse 
Electric Corporation designed 4-loop nuclear steam supply systems. 
SQN plant specific features have been evaluated including power 
limit calculations and the interaction of the reactor protection 
system trip time delay and the anticipated transient without scram 
mitigating system actuation circuitry. Correcting this 
nonconservatism restores the margin of safety to what was originally 
envisioned. Therefore, the margin of safety assumed in the accident 
analysis is not reduced by this change.
    Combining the separate action statements for 3- and 4-loop 
operation into a single action has no effect on the margin of safety 
for 4-loop operation with one or more MSSVs inoperable. Under the 
revised TS, 3-loop operation with one or more MSSVs inoperable would 
only be allowed in Mode 3, and 4-loop operation will be required in 
Modes 1 and 2 in accordance with current TSs 3.4.1.1 and 3.4.1.2.
    Revising the mode requirements and their associated times, 
consistent with the requirements in NUREG-1431, will not reduce the 
safety margin since the new requirements will continue to place the 
unit in a mode where the TS is no longer applicable. The new 
completion times for mode changes are reasonable, based on operating 
experience, to reach the required unit conditions from full power 
conditions in an orderly manner without challenging unit systems.
    The margin of safety is unaffected by modifying the limits of 
Mode 3 applicability to require the RTBs to be closed as the 
intended safety function is already completed when they are open.

    The NRC has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this 
review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11H, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Project Director: Frederick J. Hebdon.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of amendment request: December 9, 1994, and January 27, 1995
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.2.a 
and its associated Bases. The changes would defer the next scheduled 
containment integrated leak rate test (CILRT) for one outage, from 
Refuel 7 (March 1995) to Refuel 8 (scheduled for September 1996).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability of 
occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of 
equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the Safety 
Analysis Report.
    The Callaway CILRT history provides substantial justification 
for the proposed test schedule. Three CILRTs have been performed 
over a seven year period with successful results. The tests indicate 
that Callaway has a low leakage containment. There are no structural 
mechanisms which would adversely affect the structural capability of 
the containment and that would be a factor in extending the CILRT 
schedule by one refueling outage.
    A risk impact assessment was performed, and a determination was 
made that there is insignificant risk impact as a result of changing 
the CILRT schedule. Containment leak rate testing is not an 
initiator of any accident, the proposed interval extension does not 
affect reactor operations or the accident analysis, and has no 
radiological consequences. There will be no changes to 10 CFR 100 
dose limits or the control room dose limits. Extending the test 
interval will not, by itself, increase the probability of a 
malfunction of equipment important to safety. Therefore, the 
proposed change will not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously evaluated in the Safety Analysis Report.
    There are no design changes being made that would create a new 
type of accident or malfunction. The proposed change will not alter 
the plant or the manner in which it is operated. The change revises 
the schedule for performing the periodic CILRT. The purpose of the 
test is to provide periodic verification of the leaktight integrity 
of the primary reactor containment, and systems and components which 
penetrate containment. The tests assure that leakage through 
containment and systems and components penetrating containment will 
not exceed the allowable leakage rate values associated with 
[[Page 11142]] conditions resulting from an accident. The change in 
schedule for performing the CILRT will not adversely affect the 
containment integrity in the event of an accident. Therefore, the 
proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or 
different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change to the schedule for performing the periodic 
Type A test does not reduce the margin of safety assumed in the 
accident analysis for any release of radioactive materials or reduce 
any margin of safety preserved by the technical specifications. The 
methodology, acceptance criteria, and the technical specification 
leakage limits for the performance of the Type A tests will not 
change. The Type A tests will continue to be performed in accordance 
with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J and the Callaway Technical 
Specifications. Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Local Public Document Room location: Callaway County Public 
Library, 710 Court Street, Fulton, Missouri 65251.
    Attorney for licensee: Gerald Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts 
& Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Project Director: Leif J. Norrholm.

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: January 24, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) Section 15.6.5, ``Review and 
Audit,'' and TS Section 15.7.8, ``Administrative Controls.'' The 
quality assurance audit frequencies would be removed, the section on 
emergency plan reviews would be removed, and the period for radioactive 
effluent reporting would be increased to annual. In addition, the 
references to ``Semiannual Monitoring Report'' would be changed to 
``Annual Monitoring Report'' throughout TS Section 15.7.
    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:

    In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a), 
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Licensee) has evaluated the 
proposed changes against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
determined that the operation of Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 
and 2, in accordance with the proposed amendments, does not present 
a significant hazards consideration.
    A proposed facility operating license amendment does not present 
a significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in 
accordance with the proposed amendment will not:
    1. Create a significant increase in 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.
    3. Will not create a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature. There is no 
physical change to the facility, its systems, or its operation. 
Since the changes will allow more flexibility in assigning resources 
to work on poor or weak performance areas, the plant safety will be 
enhanced. Operation of PBNP in accordance with the proposed 
amendments cannot create an increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated, create a new or 
different kind of accident, or result in a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed changes do not present a 
significant hazards consideration.

    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: Leif J. Norrholm.

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.

Duke Power Company, et al., Docket No. 50-413, Catawba Nuclear Station, 
Unit 1, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: October 18, 1994.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
change Technical Specification 3.6.1.2 to defer the next scheduled 
containment integrated leak rate test at Catawba Unit 1 for one outage, 
from the end-of-cycle (EOC) 8 refueling outage (scheduled for February 
1995) to EOC 9 (scheduled for June 1996).
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: 
February 6, 1995 (60 FR 7073).
    Expiration date of individual notice: March 8, 1995.
    Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East 
Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.

Duke Power Company, et al., Docket No. 50-413 Catawba Nuclear Station, 
Unit 1, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: November 29, 1994, as supplemented 
January 12 and 27, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment requested 
renewal for Catawba Unit 1 Cycle 9 operation of the steam generator 
tube inspection bobbin probe voltage-based interim plugging criteria 
that had been previously approved for Cycle 8.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: 
February 9, 1995 (60 FR 7801).
    Expiration date of individual notice: March 13, 1995.
    Local Public Document Room location: York County Library, 138 East 
Black Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina.

Georgia Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle 
Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia,

    Date of amendment request: January 20, 1995.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification 6.4.1.2 to provide a more accurate 
description of the Plant Review Board composition.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: 
February 6, 1995 (60 FR 7077). [[Page 11143]] 
    Expiration date of individual notice: March 8, 1995.
    Local Public Document Room location: Burke County Public Library, 
412 Fourth Street, Waynesboro, Georgia.
Houston Lighting & Power Company, City Public Service Board of San 
Antonio, Central Power and Light Company, City of Austin, Texas, Docket 
Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda 
County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: November 7, 1994, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 20, 1994, and January 23, 1995.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments 
would change the number of diesel generators (emergency power supply) 
required to be operable during Mode 6 with greater than or equal to 23 
feet of water above the reactor vessel flange, from two to one. The 
amendments would also allow limited substitution of an alternate onsite 
emergency power source for one of the two required diesel generators, 
in Mode 5 and in Mode 6 with less than 23 feet of water. In addition, 
changes to certain system specifications that are affected by the 
changes for the emergency power supply were also proposed.
    Date of individual notice in Federal Register: January 30, 1995 (60 
FR 5739).
    Expiration date of individual notice: March 1, 1995.
    Local Public Document Room location: Wharton County Junior College, 
J. M. Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, Texas 77488.

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: January 27, 1995.
    Brief description of amendment request: The amendment modifies the 
technical specifications (TSs) by eliminating selected response time 
testing as described in the BWROG topical report NEDO-32291, ``System 
Analyses for Elimination of Selected Response Time Testing 
Requirements.'' The affected TSs are TS 3.3.1.1, ``Reactor Protection 
System (RPS) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.5.1, ``Emergency Core Cooling 
System (ECCS) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment and 
Drywell Isolation Instrumentation,'' and TS 3.5.1, ``ECCS--Operating.''
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: 
February 3, 1995 (60 FR 6739).
    Expiration date of individual notice: March 6, 1995.
    Local Public Document Room location: Vespasian Warner Public 
Library, 120 West Johnson Street, Clinton, Illinois 61727.

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: October 31, 1994, as 
supplemented by letter dated December 28, 1994.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
refueling machine overload cutoff limit from less than or equal to 1556 
pounds to less than or equal to 1600 pounds. The change was requested 
because design and fabrication improvements have increased the weight 
of the fuel assembly.
    Date of issuance: February 9, 1995.
    Effective date: February 9, 1995, to be implemented within 45 days 
of the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 89, 76, and 60.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The 
amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 6, 1995 (60 FR 
2160). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 9, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Phoenix Public Library, 12 
East McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

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: November 20, 1992, as 
supplemented by letters dated October 22, 1993, and November 30, 1994.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments would increase the 
allowable out-of-service time for the core operating limit supervisory 
system (COLSS) from 1 hour to 4 hours before the more restrictive 
limits based on the core protection calculators (CPCs) must be applied.
    Date of issuance: February 14, 1995.
    Effective date: February 14, 1995.
    Amendment Nos.: 90, 77, and 61.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The 
amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 6, 1993 (58 FR 
591) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 14, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Phoenix Public Library, 12 
East McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

Boston Edison Company, Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power 
Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of application for amendment: September 6, 
1994. [[Page 11144]] 
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment would remove 
Technical Specification Section 4.5.H.4 which requires the testing and 
calibration of pressure switches in certain emergency core cooling 
system lines.
    Date of issuance: February 2, 1995.
    Effective date: February 2, 1995.
    Amendment No.: 157.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 26, 1994 (59 FR 
53838). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 26, 1994 (59 FR 53838).
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Plymouth Public Library, 11 
North Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360.

Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North 
Carolina

    Date of application for amendments: March 25, 1994, as supplemented 
on July 29, 1994, and August 24, 1994.
    Brief Description of amendments: The amendments change the 
Technical Specifications to correct several typographical errors, to 
incorporate material implicitly contained in a footnote to an 
applicability statement, to provide detailed labels for items listed in 
a table, to correct the citation of references, and to remove 
references to the Rod Sequence Control System that should have been 
included in a previous change.
    Date of issuance: February 1, 1995.
    Effective date: February 1, 1995.
    Amendment Nos.: 174 and 205.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62. Amendments 
revise the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 25, 1994 (59 FR 
27050). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 1, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: University of North Carolina 
at Wilmington, William Madison Randall Library, 601 S. College Road, 
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297.

Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
    Date of application for amendment: December 12, 1994.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the 
containment spray (CS) nozzle surveillance interval from 5 to 10 years.
    Date of issuance: February 10, 1995.
    Effective date: February 10, 1995.
    Amendment No.: 157.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-23. Amendment revises the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 4, 1995 (60 FR 
497).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 10, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Hartsville Memorial Library, 
147 West College, Hartsville, South Carolina 29550.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304, Zion 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Lake County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendments: June 24, 1994.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
Technical Specifications by deleting the containment recirculation sump 
level from Accident Monitoring Instrumentation Tables 3.8.9-1 and 
4.8.9-1.
    Date of issuance: February 9, 1995.
    Effective date: February 9, 1995.
    Amendment Nos.: 160 and 148.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-39 and DPR-48: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 20, 1994 (59 FR 
37066).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 9, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Waukegan Public Library, 128 
N. County Street, Waukegan, Illinois 60085.

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No. 50-213, Haddam Neck 
Plant, Middlesex County, Connecticut, and Northeast Nuclear Energy 
Company, Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-336, and 50-423, Millstone Nuclear 
Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of application for amendments: June 30, 1994, as supplemented 
November 18, 1994, and January 12, 1995.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the 
Administrative Controls Section of the Technical Specifications by 
replacing the present Nuclear Review Board (NRB) for the Haddam Neck 
Plant, and the NRB and site Nuclear Review Board for Millstone Station 
with a Nuclear Safety Assessment Board which will serve Millstone Units 
1, 2, and 3, and Haddam Neck.
    Date of issuance: February 14, 1995.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 181, 79, 184, 104.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-61, DPR-21, DPR-65 AND NPF-49.
    Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    The November 18, 1994, and January 12, 1995, submittals provided 
clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 1994 (59 FR 
45021).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 14, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Russell Library, 123 Broad 
Street, Middletown, CT 06457, for the Haddam Neck Plant, and Learning 
Resource Center, Three Rivers Community-Technical College, Thames 
Valley Campus, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, CT 06360, for 
Millstone 1, 2, and 3.

Duquesne Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-334, Beaver Valley Power 
Station, Unit No. 1, Shippingport, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendment: July 29, 1994, as supplemented 
in a letter dated December 13, 1994.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises Technical 
Specifications (TSs) 3/4.4.5 and 3.4.6.2 including associated Bases 3/
4.4.5 and 3/4.4.6.2 to allow the implementation of [[Page 11145]] steam 
generator tube interim plugging criteria (IPC) for the tube support 
plate elevations during operating cycle 11. The current TSs require 
that tubes with imperfections exceeding 40 percent of the nominal tube 
wall thickness be removed from service. The IPC will allow a test 
voltage-based criterion of 1.0 volts as determined by a bobbin probe 
inspection of the tubes. Voltages greater than 1.0 volt will be further 
examined using a pancake coil probe. Tubes showing flaw indications 
with a bobbin voltage greater than 3.6 volts will be plugged or 
repaired.
    Date of issuance: February 3, 1995.
    Effective date: February 3, 1995.
    Amendment No: 184.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-66. Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 17, 1994 (59 FR 
42337). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 3, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 
663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: November 8, 1994.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical 
specification section that describes the frequency for performing the 
containment integrated leak rate tests.
    Date of issuance: February 6, 1995.
    Effective date: February 6, 1995.
    Amendment No.: 175.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-51. Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 4, 1995, (60 FR 
502). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 6, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Tomlinson Library, Arkansas 
Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas 72801.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie 
Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: July 25, 1994.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment will upgrade 
Technical Specification 3/4.7.1.6 for the Main Feedwater Line Isolation 
Valves to be consistent with NUREG-1432, Standard Technical 
Specifications for Combustion Engineering Plants.
    Date of Issuance: February 9, 1995.
    Effective Date: February 9, 1995.
    Amendment No.: 71.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-16: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 1994 (59 FR 
45024) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 9, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Indian River Junior College 
Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 34954-9003.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of application for amendments: July 25, 1994.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments implement GL 93-
05 Items 5.8, 6.1, 7.1 and 7.5.
    Date of Issuance: February 9, 1995.
    Effective Date: February 9, 1995.
    Amendment Nos.: 133 and 72.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 1994 (59 FR 
45023) The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 9, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Indian River Junior College 
Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 34954-9003.

Houston Lighting & Power Company, City Public Service Board of San 
Antonio, Central Power and Light Company, City of Austin, Texas, Docket 
Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda 
County, Texas.

    Date of amendment request: November 7, 1994.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments permit both 
containment personnel airlock doors to be open while moving fuel during 
refueling operations.
    Date of issuance: February 2, 1995.
    Effective date: February 2, 1995, to be implemented within 30 days 
of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--Amendment No. 69; Unit 2--Amendment No. 58.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80. The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 7, 1994 (59 FR 
63123). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 9, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Wharton County Junior College, 
J. M. Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, Texas 77488.

Houston Lighting & Power Company, City Public Service Board of San 
Antonio, Central Power and Light Company, City of Austin, Texas, Docket 
Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda 
County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: November 8, 1994.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments permit the 
substitution of an extended range neutron flux monitor for one of the 
source range neutron flux monitors during refueling operations.
    Date of issuance: February 13, 1995.
    Effective date: February 13, 1995.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--Amendment No. 70; Unit 2--Amendment No. 59.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80. The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 7, 1994 (59 FR 
63124). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 13, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Wharton County Junior College, 
J. M. Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, Texas 77488.

Houston Lighting & Power Company, City Public Service Board of San 
Antonio, Central Power and Light Company, City of Austin, Texas, Docket 
Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda 
County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: June 6, 1994, as supplemented by letters 
dated November 17, 1994, and December 5, 1994.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify Technical 
[[Page 11146]] Specification 3/4.8.1.1, ``A.C. Sources'' by revising 
the action statements and surveillance requirements for testing of the 
standby diesel generators (SDGs). The amendments eliminate excessive 
and unnecessary testing of the SDGs consistent with the guidance 
provided in NUREG-1366, ``Improvements to Technical Specifications 
Surveillance Requirements,'' NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications for Westinghouse Plants,'' Generic Letter 84-15, 
``Proposed Staff Actions to Improve and Maintain Diesel Generator 
Reliability,'' and Generic Letter 93-05, ``Line-Item Technical 
Specifications Improvements to Reduce Surveillance Requirements for 
Testing During Power Operation.'' The changes include: (1) eliminating 
the requirement to demonstrate the operability of an operable SDG 
whenever an offsite AC power source is determined to be inoperable, or 
whenever a support system or an independently testable component of 
another SDG is inoperable, (2) eliminating the requirement to load the 
diesel in 10 minutes during testing, (3) replacing the minimum required 
loading for testing with a load band, (4) relocating some surveillance 
requirements to the Diesel Fuel Oil Testing Program, and (5) 
eliminating unnecessary loss-of-offsite power tests.
    Date of issuance: February 2, 1995.
    Effective date: February 2, 1995, to be implemented within 60 days 
of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--Amendment No. 68; Unit 2--Amendment No. 57.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80. Amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 20, 1994 (59 FR 
37073). The November 17, 1994, and December 5, 1994, submittals 
provided clarifying information and did not change the original no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 2, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room Location: Wharton County Junior College, 
J. M. Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, Texas 77488.

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 application for amendments: August 3, 1994.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments relocate the 
Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications to other controlled 
documents consistent with NRC Generic Letter 89-01.
    Date of issuance: February 10, 1995.
    Effective date: February 10, 1995.
    Amendment Nos.: 189 and 175.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74. Amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 9, 1994 (59 FR 
55873).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 10, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Maud Preston Palenske Memorial 
Library, 500 Market Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085.

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No. 50-309, Maine Yankee 
Atomic Power Station, Lincoln County, Maine

    Date of application for amendment: October 24, 1994, as 
supplemented by letter dated December 16, 1994.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment modifies Technical 
Specifications Table 4.1-3 surveillance requirements for the new 
emergency feedwater flow instrumentation. Specifically, the currently 
installed analog feedwater flow transmitters are to be replaced by new, 
digital-type flow transmitters. The new digital flow emergency 
feedwater flow transmitters are continuously self-checking and have a 
recommended calibration interval of 9 years. The licensee will verify 
flow whenever the system operates and send one transmitter back to the 
manufacturer for recalibration every refueling outage.
    Date of issuance: February 15, 1995.
    Effective date: February 15, 1995.
    Amendment No.: 147.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-36: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 7, 1994 (59 FR 
63124). The December 16, 1994, letter provided clarifying information 
that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 15, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Wiscasset Public Library, High 
Street, P.O. Box 367, Wiscasset, Maine 04578.

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Docket No. 50-309, Maine Yankee 
Atomic Power Station, Lincoln County, Maine

    Date of application for amendment: May 25, 1994, as supplemented 
September 1, 1994, and January 13, 1995.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment allows (1) entry 
through an operable personnel air lock hatch to perform surveillance 
testing, repair an inoperable hatch, or perform other necessary 
activities inside containment; (2) update plant Technical 
Specifications to reflect a previous change to the list of containment 
boundary valves; (3) add a new exception to allow quarterly 
surveillance testing of the excess flow check valves; (4) add a new 
exception to allow periodic preventive maintenance on control room 
ventilation lasting up to 30 minutes per calendar quarter, without a 
written report of such inoperability; and (5) make related 
administrative changes to reflect and clarify items 1 through 4 above.
    Date of issuance: February 10, 1995.
    Effective date: February 10, 1995.
    Amendment No.: 146.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-36: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 22, 1994 (59 FR 
32231). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 10, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No
    Local Public Document Room location: Wiscasset Public Library, High 
Street, P.O. Box 367, Wiscasset, Maine 04578.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: November 3, 1993.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises License 
Condition 2.C.(4), ``Turbine System Maintenance Program,'' and deletes 
Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.3.8, ``Turbine 
[[Page 11147]] Overspeed Protection System,'' and its associated Bases. 
The revision to License Condition 2.C.(4) indicates that the 
requirements of this license condition have been satisfied. The 
deletion of TS 3/4.3.8 and its associated Bases provides Niagara Mohawk 
Power Corporation the flexibility to implement the manufacturer's 
recommendations for turbine steam valve surveillance test requirements. 
These test requirements will be contained in the Updated Safety 
Analysis Report.
    Date of issuance: February 14, 1995.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
30 days.
    Amendment No.: 63.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revises the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 8, 1993 (58 FR 
64611). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 14, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Reference and Documents 
Department, Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New 
York 13126.

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone 
Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of application for amendment: April 25, 1994.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the Technical 
Specifications concerning four related issues: (1) power-operated 
relief valve and block valve reliability; (2) low-temperature 
overpressure protection; (3) boron dilution; and (4) shutdown risk 
management.
    Date of issuance: February 15, 1995.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
30 days.
    Amendment No.: 185.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-65. Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 25, 1994 (59 FR 
27060). The September 21, 1994, letter provided clarifying information 
that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 15, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Learning Resources Center, 
Thames Valley State Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, 
Norwich, Connecticut 06360.

North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook 
Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: June 18, 1993, as supplemented by letter 
dated November 23, 1994.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revises the 
Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) relating to the Independent 
Safety Engineering Group. Specifically, the amendment revises the title 
of TS 6.2.3 from Independent Safety Engineering Group to Independent 
Technical Reviews, and replaces the requirements for the five person 
Independent Safety Engineering Group with requirements relating to a 
technical review program to perform independent technical reviews.
    Date of issuance: February 14, 1995.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within 
60 days.
    Amendment No.: 35.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86. Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 18, 1993 (58 FR 
43927). The licensee's letter dated November 23, 1994, provided a minor 
revision to the application but does not change the initial proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 14, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Exeter Public Library, 47 
Front Street, Exeter, NH 03833.

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 application for amendments: October 21, 1994.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments add a test 
exception to allow reactor coolant temperatures up to 212 degrees F 
during hydrostatic or inservice leak testing while in OPERATIONAL 
CONDITION 4 without entering OPERATIONAL CONDITION 3.
    Date of issuance: February 13, 1995.
    Effective date: To be implemented within 30 days from the date of 
issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 142 and 112.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22. The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 22, 1994 (59 
FR 66057). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 13, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Osterhout Free Library, 
Reference Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, 
Pennsylvania 18701.

Philadelphia Electric Company, Docket No. 50-353, Limerick Generating 
Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendment: December 9, 1993, as 
supplemented by letters dated July 5, September 9, October 19, November 
15, and December 2, 1994, January 6 and January 23, 1995. The 
supplemental letters provided clarifying information that did not 
change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment raises the 
authorized maximum power level from 3293 MWt to a new limit of 3458 
MWt. The amendment also approves changes to the Technical 
Specifications to implement uprated power operation.
    Date of issuance: February 16, 1995.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of its date 
of issuance and is to be implemented prior to startup in Cycle 4.
    Amendment No.: 51.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-85. This amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 16, 1994 (59 
FR 7695). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 16, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Pottstown Public Library, 500 
High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.
Philadelphia Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of application for amendments: October 29, 1993.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments eliminate the 
main [[Page 11148]] steamline radiation monitoring system high 
radiation trip function for initiating (1) an automatic reactor scram 
and automatic closure of the main steamline isolation valves, and (2) 
automatic closure of the main steamline drain valves, main steam and 
reactor water sample line valves. The amendments also approve the 
relocation of portions of the information contained in the Bases 
section.
    Date of issuance: February 16, 1995.
    Effective date: February 16, 1995.
    Amendment Nos. 89 and 52.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85. The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 5, 1994 (59 FR 
624). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 16, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Pottstown Public Library, 500 
High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna 
Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: May 13, 1994, as supplemented 
June 24 and September 27, 1994.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment proposes to amend 
Appendix A of Operating License DPR-18 to revise Section 6.0 
``Administrative Controls'' of the Ginna Technical Specifications (TSs) 
and would change the title of Senior Vice President, Production and 
Engineering, include a provision to allow future title changes without 
license amendment, and implement those changes in NUREG-1431 ``Standard 
Technical Specification--Westinghouse Plants,'' dated September 1992, 
by relocating to licensee controlled documents those specifications 
controlled by regulations and the existing review and audit 
requirements. The remainder of this amendment request will be reviewed 
at a later date.
    Date of issuance: February 6, 1995.
    Effective date: February 6, 1995.
    Amendment No.: 58.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 20, 1994 (59 FR 
37084). The June 24, 1994, submittal provided information which did not 
change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination. 
The licensee's submittal of September 27, 1994, limited, but did not 
change, the licensee's previously requested TS changes of May 13, 1994.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 6, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Rochester Public Library, 115 
South Avenue, Rochester, New York 14610.

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, San 
Diego County, California

    Date of application for amendments: December 30, 1993, as 
supplemented by letters dated June 3, 1994, August 25, 1994, and 
January 3, 19, and 30, 1995.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments will revise TS 
Table 3.3-1, ``Reactor Protective Instrumentation,'' to allow the use 
of the source range neutron flux monitors in place of safety related 
excore monitors in Modes 3, 4, and 5, with the reactor trip circuit 
breakers open or the Control Element Assembly (CEA) Drive System not 
capable of CEA withdrawal, for the purpose of monitoring core reactive 
changes.
    Date of issuance: February 13, 1995.
    Effective date: February 13, 1995.
    Amendment Nos.: 115 and 104.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 28, 1994 (59 
FR 49434). The additional information contained in the January 3, 19, 
and 30, 1995, letters were clarifying in nature, within the scope of 
the initial notice and did not affect the NRC staff's proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 13, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Main Library, University of 
California, P.O. Box 19557, Irvine, California 92713.

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, San 
Diego County, California

    Date of application for amendments: July 28, 1994, as supplemented 
by letters dated January 30 and February 13, 1995.
    Brief description of amendments: These amendments propose to revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.9.8.1 ``Shutdown Cooling and Coolant 
Circulation--High Water Level,'' TS 3.9.8.2 ``Shutdown Cooling and 
Coolant Circulation--Low Water Level,'' and their Bases to facilitate 
testing of low-pressure safety injection system components and permit 
additional flexibility in scheduling maintenance on the shutdown 
cooling system.
    Date of issuance: February 15, 1995.
    Effective date: February 15, 1995.
    Amendment Nos.: 116 and 105.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments 
revised the Technical Specifications on a one-time basis for each unit.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 12, 1994 (59 FR 
51627). The additional information contained in the supplemental 
letters dated January 30 and February 13, 1995, served to clarify the 
amendments, was within the scope of the initial notice, and did not 
affect the Commission's proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 15, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Main Library, University of 
California, P. O. Box 19557, Irvine, California 92713.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of application for amendment: October 17, 1994, as 
supplemented January 30, 1995.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the Technical 
Specifications to relocate the seismic monitoring instrumentation (SMI) 
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO), Surveillance Requirements 
(SRs), and associated tables and bases contained in Technical 
Specifications (TS) sections 3.3.3.3 and 4.3.3.3 to the Final Safety 
Analysis Report (FSAR) or an equivalent controlled document.
    Date of issuance: February 15, 1995.
    Effective date: February 15, 1995.
    Amendment No.: 122.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-12. Amendment revises the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 8, 1994 (59 FR 
55717). The January 30, 1995, supplement did not affect the staff's 
[[Page 11149]] finding of no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 15, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Local Public Document Room location: Fairfield County Library, 300 
Washington Street, Winnsboro, SC 29180.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of application for amendments: September 29, 1993.
    Brief Description of amendment: The proposed changes revise 
standards for testing of charcoal used for removal of radioactive 
iodine in ventilation systems at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.
    Date of issuance: February 13, 1995.
    Effective Date: February 13, 1995.
    Amendment Nos.: 215, 231 and 188.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52 and DPR-68: 
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 22, 1993 (58 
FR 67862). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 13, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: None.
    Local Public Document Room Location: Athens Public library, South 
Street, Athens, Alabama 35611.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 3, Limestone County, Alabama

    Date of application for amendment: March 29, 1994.
    Brief Description of amendment: The amendment adds requirements for 
load shedding components being added to ensure that emergency diesel 
generators are not overloaded during design basis accidents.
    Date of issuance: February 14, 1995.
    Effective Date: February 14, 1995.
    Amendment No.: 189.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-68: Amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 3, 1994 (59 FR 
39597). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 14, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: None.
    Local Public Document Room Location: Athens Public library, South 
Street, Athens, Alabama 35611.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of application for amendments: December 16, 1994; supplemented 
January 19, 1995 (TS 94-16).
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments remove the 900 rpm 
emergency diesel generator surveillance test criteria and a requirement 
that the plant be shutdown for performance of the interdependence 
diesel generator tests.
    Date of issuance: February 9, 1995.
    Effective date: February 9, 1995.
    Amendment Nos.: 195 and 186.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments 
revise the technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 29, 1994 (59 
FR 67350). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 9, 1995.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: None.
    Local Public Document Room location: Chattanooga-Hamilton County 
Library, 1101 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402.

Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and 
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency 
Circumstances)

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the 
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules 
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as 
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual 30-day Notice of 
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the 
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments 
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has 
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
been issued and made effective as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has [[Page 11150]] made a determination based on 
that assessment, it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation 
and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at 
the local public document room for the particular facility involved.
    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment. By March 31, 1995, 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 limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses. Since the Commission has made a final determination 
that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a 
hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the 
amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in 
effect.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, 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 the 
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
Commonwealth Edison Company, Docket No. 50-374, LaSalle County Station, 
Unit 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: January 30, 1995.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment adds a footnote to 
Technical Specification Table 4.3.1.1-1 to allow a one-time extension 
of the surveillance interval for the main steam line isolation valve 
(MSIV) closure reactor protection system channel functional test. This 
extension averts the need to perform the functional test prior to the 
start of the upcoming Unit 2 refueling outage.
    Date of Issuance: February 15, 1995.
    Effective date: Immediately and shall be implemented prior to 2:45 
a.m. CST on February 15, 1995.
    Amendment No.: 86.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-18: The amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications.
    Press release issued requesting comments as to proposed no 
siginificant hazards consideration: Yes. February 6, 1995, Morris Daily 
Herald; Ottawa Daily Times; and Streator Times-Press.
    Comments received: No. The Commission's related evaluation of the 
amendment, finding of exigent circumstances, consultation with the 
State of Illinois and final determination of no significant hazards 
consideration [[Page 11151]] are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 
February 14, 1995.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael I. Miller, Esquire; Sidley and 
Austin, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60690.
    Local Public Document Room location: Public Library of Illinois 
Valley Community College, Rural Route No. 1, Oglesby, Illinois 61348.
    NRC Project Director: Robert A. Capra.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of February 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John N. Hannon,
Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects--III/IV, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-4870 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P