ML20042D229
| ML20042D229 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1989 |
| From: | Mcneil S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042D230 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9001080086 | |
| Download: ML20042D229 (7) | |
Text
_
~
7590 01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$f 0N BALTIMORE GA! AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 00CKET N0. 50-317 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING t.fCENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-53 issued to the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (the licensee) for operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Unit No.1, located in Calvert County, Maryland.
The proposed amendment would make the following changes in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated December 20, 1989 to ensure the adequacy of low temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) at Calvert Cliffs Unit 1.
1.
Modify Table 3.3.3 of Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.3.2,
" Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation," to modify the oderability requirement for the safety injection functional unit by placing the operable high pressure safety injection (HPSI) pump in the " pull-to-lock" position, when the average reactor coolant system (RCS) temperature is less than or equal to 350 degrees F, so that it will not start automatically on a safety injection actuation system (SIAS) signal.
2.
Expand the applicability of TS 3/4.5.1 " Safety Injection Tanks," to require the safety injection tanks (SITS) to remain operable throughout mode 3 (hot standby) instead of the current requirement that SITS must be operable when in mode 3 and RCS pressure is above 1750 psia.
T882iB8!h8sa88?17 F
PDC Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Comission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Comission's regulations.
The Comission has made a proposed determination that the request for amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Comission'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 licensee evaluated the proposed chsnges against the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 and has detemined that the amendment would not:
(i) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated...
" Administrative controls are being revised to prevent the occurrence of events in which automatic protection is not sufficient to prevent exceeding the LTOP limits. The evaluation performed shows that.-by utilizing SIT availability in lieu of automatic HPSI pump starting, adequate protection against the effect of a LOCA is still provided until operator action can manually initiate HPSI flow. Therefore, the proposed change does not significantly increase the orobability of an accident previously evaluated.
Furthermore, this change will not result in a significant change to the configuration or operation of the plant, and therefore, would not significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously analyzed."
3o (11) create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated...
"This proposal would disable the automatic HPSI pump start capability at and below 350 degrees F, but an adequate substitute (SITS) as demonstrated by the evaluation, will be provided.
No significant plant configuration or operation changes are required.
Specifically, no new hardware is being added to the plant, no existing equipment is being modified, nor are any new or different types of operations being introduced. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different type of -
accident from any accident previously evaluated would not be created."
(iii) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Administrative controls have been added to reduce the likelihood of inadvertent mass addition accidents. The reactor vessel integrity limits will not be challenged when the described administrative controls are applied.
The proposed Technical Specification change substitutes the SITS for automatic HPSI pump start in the event of a LOCA at 350 degress F and below. The evaluation performed shows that adequate flow would still be available with the conservative assumptions listed in the discussion.
Adequate protection against the effect of a LOCA is still provided until cperator action can manually initiate HPSI flow, if the SITS are used as described in this submittal.
Therefore, the proposed changes would not significantly reduce the margin of safety.
Therefore, based on the above considerations, the NRC staff has made a proposed determination that the changes requested, to provide Unit 1 LTOP, involve no significant hazards consideration.
The ammission 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 madng any final determination. The Commission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
4.
1 Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services. Office of i
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, D.C.
- 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER j
notice.
Written coments may also be delivered to Room P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
Copies of
{
written coments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
The filing of requests
{
for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
)
By
, 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 i
who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written I
petition for leave to intervene. Request for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Comission's " Rules i
of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested-persens should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the Comission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street.
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the Local Public Documer.t Room located at the Calvert County Library, Prince Frederick, Maryland.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Comission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Comission 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 s
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of 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 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 en the petitioner's interest.
The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishi.s 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 fifteen (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 fifteen (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 I
6 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 infomation 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 awndments i
under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, wuld entitle the petitionar to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such x supplerrent which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
l
?
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the i
opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the i
opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Connission will make a final determination i
on the issue of no significant hazards considerations. The final detemination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final detemination is that the request for amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and i
make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If a final detemination is that the amendment involves-significant I
i I
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
t
<r
~
O date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice). A copy of the petition I
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, and to 0. A. Brune, Jr.,
General Counsel, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, P. O. Box 1475, Baltimore, Maryland 21203, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained.
absent a determination by the Comission, the presiding officer or the Atomic
)
i Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the petition and/or request,
{
that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for the l
grant 19 of a late petition and/or request. That determination will be based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details tyith respect to this action, see the application t
for amendment dated December 20, 1989, which is available for public inspection
(
at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the local Public Document Room located at the Calvert County Library, Prince Frederick, Maryland.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of December 1989, t
FOR.THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lW(406~.
Y 1
Scott Alexander McNeil, Project Manager Project Directorate I-l Division of Reactor Projects 1/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a
b i.
I
-