ML20117P933
| ML20117P933 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1989 |
| From: | Capra R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20116D885 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-96-237 NUDOCS 8905020405 | |
| Download: ML20117P933 (10) | |
Text
_
4 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 911SSION BALTIM0RE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory,Conunission (the Comission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69, issued to the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (the licensee), for operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, respectively, located in Calvert County, Maryland.
The amendments would make the following changes in accordance with the Itcensee's application for amendments dated January 20, 1987, as supplemented on January 12, 1988:
1.
DeletethecurrentrequirementofTechnicalSpecification(TS)
Surveillance Requirement 4.6.4.1.2.c to verify that the containment purge air inlet valves (CPA-1410-CV and CPA-1411-CV) and the containment purge air outlet valves (CPA-1412-CV and CPA-1413-CV) close to their actuation positions upon receiving a safety injection actuation system (SIAS) test signal.
In addition, reference to the SIAS action of the containment purge valves would be deleted from TS Tables 3.3-3, " Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation," Table 3.3-4, " Engineered Safety Feature Actur. tion
/d fr
/
M50204d M coc
i 1
- l l
System Instrumentation Trip Valves," and Table 4.3-2, " Engineered Safety 1
l Feature Actuation System Surveillance Requirements."
2.
Eliminate redundancy and consolidate containment purge valve TS
{
requirements by relocating their surveillance test requirements from TS 3/4.6.4, " Containment Isolation Yalves," and TS 3/4.9.9, " Refueling Operations - Containment Purge Valve Isolation System," to an expanded TS 3/4.9.4, " Refueling Operations - Containment Penetrations."
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission will have r!ade findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Connission's regulations.
1 The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A I
proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no I
significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with a 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 previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The licensee evaluated the proposed changes against the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 and has determined that the amendments would not:
(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated...
Both Changes are effectively administrative in nature.
i I
4
~ The Change No. I deletion of the SIAS test requirements of TS 4.6.4.1.2.c and TS 3/4.3.2, " Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation,"
for containment purge valves will have no significant impact upon the probability or consequences of any previously evaluated accident. SIAS performs its safety functions when the unit is in operating modes 1-4 (Power Operations through Hot Shutdown) and is not required to be operable while in modes 5 or 6 (Cold Shutdown and Refueling). SIAS functions to close the containment purge valves. However TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.6.1.7 requires, while in modes 1-4, the containment purge valves to be closed by isolating air to their air operators and by maintaining their solenoid air supply valves deenergized. This requirement appears to render moot the need for testing the SIAS actuation of the containment purge valves as these valves are always closed during operating modes where SIAS is requiredtobeoperable(modes 1-4).
In addition, the action requirements for an open containment purge valve of TS 3.6.1.7 are more restrictive than those presently applicable in TS 3/4.6.4 The notes in TS Tables 3.3-3, 3.3-4 and 4.3-2 are for information purposes only and impose no operability or testing requirements. Thus, the deletion of the information statement, that " Containment purge valve isolation is also initiated by SIAS (functional units 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c)," would have no apparent effects upon previously evaluated accidents.
Change No. 2 would eliminate TS 3/4.9.9, relocating its requirements in TS 3/4.9.4, and would also delete the containment purge valves from TS 3/4.6.4, Table 3.6-1.
The following containment purge valve testing requirements, effectively removed from TS 3/4.6.4, would be incorporated in TS 3/4.9.4:
i l
1
l
. i "The isolation time of each containment purge valve shall be a.
determined to be less.than or equal to seven seconds when tested 1
pursuant to Technical Specification 4.0.5," and b.
"The containment purge valves shall be demonstrated operable prior to returning the valves to automatic service after maintenance, repair, or replacement work is performed on the purge valve or its associated actuator, control, or power circuit by performance of a cycling test and verification of isolation time."
In addition, TS 4.9.4.1.b shall be further clarified by specifying that containment purge valves are demonstrated operable by verifying closure upon
- 1) receiving Containment Radiation High test signals and 2) manual initiation.
In this consolidation of containment purge valve TS requirements, all current operability and testing requirements would continue to exist but instead of being dispersed between three TS's, they would be consolidated in TS 3/4.9.4. All applicable TS Action Statements would remain at least as conservative as currently provided in the TS.
Consequently, these proposed changes would not result in any increase in the probability or consequences of previously evaluated accidents.
(ii) Create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated...
These proposed changes do not alter any plant operability requirements, surveillance testing, maintenance, or system design or functions other than eliminating the SIAS testing of the containment purge valves which are already required to be in their closed positions in modes 1-4, which are the positions
A
- to which they would actuate upon receipt of a SIAS. Thus, these changes, as proposed, would not create the possibility of any new or different type of accident.
(iii)
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety...
These proposals do not alter any plant operational requirements or 2
restrictions other than the SIAS testing of containment purge valves.
Therefore, these proposed changes will not involve any reduction in any margin of safety.
Finally, on March 6,1986, the NRC published guidance in the Federal 4
Register (51 FR 7751) concerning examples of amendments that are not likely to involve a significant hazards consideration.
These changes appear to be consistent with one of the examples provided:
"(i) A purely administrative change to the Technical Specifications...."
Based on the above reasoning, the licensee has determined that the proposed changes involve no significant hazards consideration. The NRC staff
)
has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination and agrees with the licensee's analyses. Accordingly, the Consnission proposes to determine that the requested amendments do not involve a significant hazards i
consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 des after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. The Consnission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
- 1 i
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules and Procedures Brtnch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration and Resources Management, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and l
should cite the pubifcation date and page number of the FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written coments may also be delivered to Room P-223, Phillips Building j
7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of written connents received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20555. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
J By
, the Itcensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating licenses and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes 4
to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene. Requests 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 i
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 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 I
appropriate order.
l i
. As required by 10 CFR 62.714, 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)thenature 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
{
I l
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 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 4
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, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendments 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 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 amendments request involve no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendments and make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendments.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments 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 Ifcense amendments before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and l
State comments r?ceived. 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.
I
. A request far 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 Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Comission's Pubite Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20555 by the above date. Where petitions are filed durIngthelastten(10)daysofthenoticeperiod,itisrequestedthatthe petitioner promptly so inform the Comission by a toll-free telephone call to WesternUnionat(800)325-6000(inMissouri(800)342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to Robert A. Capra: 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 Comission, Washington, DC 20555, and to D. A. Brune, Jr., General Counsel, Baltimore Gas and 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 Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause foi the granting 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).
- 10 for further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated January 20, 1987 as supplemented on January 12, 1988, which are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20555, and at the Local Public Document Room, Calvert County Library, Prince Frederick, Maryland.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of April 26, 1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION original signed by Robert A. Capra, Director j
Project Directorate I.1 Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
sc :PDI-1
- PDI-l
- C
..._ : _ _ _ _ _ _..._ _ : qg/... :.._ _ _.... : PD iU1E :CYogan f.s
- SMcNeil:vr :
- RCapra
.:_f _________:._______ ___:___________-:____. _____
%TE : V/24/89
- 4 /3;,/89
/ /89 7 /Jlfe/89 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY