ML20077L080
| ML20077L080 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1983 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20077L084 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308080425 | |
| Download: ML20077L080 (9) | |
Text
4
~
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION DOCKET NO. 50-289 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. OPR-50, issued to Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power and Light Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, and GPU Nuclear Corporation (the ifcensees),
for operation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1 (the facility) located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
In accordance with the licensees' application for ame'ndment dated June 20,1983, the proposed amendment would make four revisions to the Technical Specifications. First, it would revise the Technical Specifications to offset c
a potential non-conservatism in the prediction of peak cladding temperature j
during a loss of coolant accident (LOCA). The potential non-conservatism had been previously discovered and reported by the facility vendor. Second, 4
it would revise the centerline fuel melt limit in the Technical Specifications y
for Cycle 5 operation from 19.6 kw/ft to 20.15 kw/ft. The 19.6 kw/ft limit s
was for Cycle 4 operation and was incorrectly retained for Cycle 5 operation.
8308080425 830713 i
PDR ADOCK 05000289 P
I, 7590-01
-k
,.i tj Third, the proposed amendment would reduce the reactor protection system flux to pump trip setpoint for two pump operation from 91 percent (%) to 55 percent 5
(%) of rated power. This reduction is based upon a vendor recommendation and will provide a common basis for future vendor analyses. Fourth, it would revise the quadrant tilt instrumentation requirements with respect to the preferred order of use of the three detector systems.
The allowable quadrant tilt limits remain unchanged.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed detemination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance j
with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) l, l.'
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident p
previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The Commission proposes, with respect to the first revision discussed above, to detennine that a significant hazards consideration is not involved L
because the allowable peak LOCA derived linear heat generation rates (LHR) at the 2, 4, and 6 foot core elevations will be reduced in the Technical Specifi-f' cations for the first 50 effective full power days to compensate for the non-conservatism of the TAFY fuel performance code used in the TMI-l Cycle 5 ECCS li I
t i l --
.-.--w
-.-e.,,
7590-01
- (.
l analysis. The TAFY analysis results coupled with the revised LOCA kw/ft limits provide conservative LOCA predictions relative to the predictions using the y
as-approved TACO-1. code..Thus, this proposed revision would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated since it adds :onservatism, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated since it reduces existing Technical Specification limits, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety since it is based on more conservative analyses.
With respect to the second revision of the proposed amendment, the Commission proposes that a significant hazards consideration is not involved since the centerline fuel melt limit being proposed is the same as that cited in the licensees' earlier application for amendment for Cycle 5 operation dated December 28, 1978, which was subsequently reviewed and approved by the Commission.
(See knendment No. 50 to DPR-50 dated March 16, 1979).
Amendment No. 50 included a determination that a significant hazards consideration is not involved.
Thus, based'on documented analysis, this proposed revision' would not (1) 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 previousi-( evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
t
7590-01
- j 4
With respect to the third revision of the proposed amendment, the Commission 3j proposes that a significant hazards consideration is not involved since the 1
reactor _ protection syst_em setpoint is being revised so as to introduce additional j
conservatism. Thus, this proposed revision would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated since it adds conservatism, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated since it reduces existing Technical Specification limits, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety since it adds conservatism.
With respect to the fourth revision of the proposed amendment, the Commission proposes that a significant hazards consideration is not involved since the i
existing quadrant tilt Technical Specification limits remain unchanged. Thus, this proposed revision, since it does not revise existing Technical i
Specification limits, would not (1) 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 prevfously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin cf safety.
In summary, the Commission proposes to determine that the amendment (revisions one through four) does not involve a significant hazards consideration for reasons as cited above.
e f
i
7590-01 o i The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice 2
will be conside' red in making any final determination. The Commission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
J Comments should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attn: Docketing and I
Service Branch.
By August 22, 1983
, the licensees may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating i
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 i
petition for leave to intervene. Request for a hearing and petitions 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.
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 hearing or an appropriate order.
4 t
.-.._.__,-,_..,m.
...,y r,
{*
I
?
7590-01 L J h
As required by 10 CFR 52.714, 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 r
permitted with particular reference to the following factors:
(1) the nature J
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 Lj interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which j
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 e
proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has f
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 hJ above.
'k Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference d
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition 1
to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth d
with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within i
the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be pennitted to participate as a party.
7590-01 4 Those pemitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject ilj to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate _ fully in,the conduct of the hearing, including W
the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examinc witnesses.
.i
?j If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination
..j on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determina-U tion will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any j
hearing held would take place af ter issuance of the amendment.
I If the final detemination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Nomally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expir-q ation 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
- i 1:
period, provided that its final detemination is that the amendment involves i
f no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider l
I
7590-01
~ all public and State comments received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish 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.
1 l
l A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be i
filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
.j
' Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be A
delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the
-l last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner i
promptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700). The Western Union P
operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to John F. Stolz: petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number l
of this FEDERAL, REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 10 l'
D.C.
20555, and to G. F. Trowbridge, Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036, attorney for the licensees.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, i,
supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the petition and/or request,
!I t
t
j 7590-01 l that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for the 1
1 granting of a late petition and/or request. That determination will be based upon a b,alancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(f)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Government Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Education Building, Commonwealth and Walnut Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this13th day of July 1983.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
J Kh F. Stolz, Chief 0 erating Reactors Branch #4 vision of Licensing 4
- N i
a 4
t i
9 4
t