ML20127B476
| ML20127B476 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Cook |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1984 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A737 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-794 NUDOCS 8404230298 | |
| Download: ML20127B476 (10) | |
Text
-
q.
7590-01 4
'I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-316 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED N0 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-74, issued to Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (the licensee), for operation of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2 located in Berrien County, Michigan.
The amendment, as a result of the Cycle 5 reload review, would revise the Technical Specifications on the acceptable relationship between the reactor coolant system total flowrate, radial pin peaking factor (F$ H) and power level as a result of emergency core cooling system / loss of coolant accident analysis with up to 5% of the steam generator tubes plugged.
The amendment would also revise the Technical Specifications to require 50% of the ice condensor doors to be tested each 9 months (rather than 25% every 6 month), add containment penetration isclation valves on the Containment Service Air systems to Table 3.6-1 with appropriate surveillance isolation times, change the reactor coolant system T,yg for four loop operation to account for instrument uncertanties, to change the flow balance test requirements for the Safety Injection System to account for greater miniflow p
a 7590-01 to provide more conservation for net position suction head for the pumps under accident condition, to add the group demand counters to show rod
~
positions during calibration of the rod position indicator, and to make a number of editorial changes including sone deletions of statements no longer applicable to plant operation.
The amendment, as a result of the Cycle 5 reload review, would also change the licensing condition 2.C.3(p) by deleting requirements for the seismic analysis of the fuel and revised calculations using the RODEX 2 code.
These changes are in accordance with the licensee's applications for amendment dated March 1 and 15, 1984 and the Exxon Nuclear Company's letters, on behalf of the applicant, dated March 2, 13, and 16, 1984. The deletion of the licensing condition on fuel seismic design is further supported by the licensee's letter dated November 11, 1983.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 195'4, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Conunission'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 possiblity or a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
e l
7590-01
, The Comission has provided guidance concerning the application of these standards by.providing examples of amendments that are likely to not involve a significant hazards consideration.
These were published in the
-FEDERAL REGISTER on April 6, 1983 (48 FR 14870).
One of these examples, (iii), involves a change re'ulting from a ' nuclear reactor core reloading, if s
no. fuel assemblies significantly different from those found previously acceptable to the NRC for a previous core at the facility in question are involved. This assumes that no significant changes are made to the acceptance criteria for the Technical Specifications, that the analytical methods used to demonstrate conformance with the Technical Specifications and regulations are not significantly changed, and that NRC has previously found such methods acceptable.
The proposed amendment to ~ change the relationship of reactor coolant system flowrate, radial pin peaking factor, and power level to account for up to 5% of the steam generator tubes being plugged is directly related to this example.
The new fuel being loaded is exactly like that loaded in cycle 4.
The acceptable criteria for the.
Technical. Specifications are unchanged and the analytical methods, used in cycle 4 and with other pressurized water reactor reloads, is not significantly changed and have previously been found acceptable,by the NRC.
Another example, (vi), involves a change which either may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously-analyzed accident or may reduce in some way a safety margin, but where the results of the change are clearly within all acceptable criteria with respect to the system or component specified in the Standard Review Plan.
Some of the changes are related to this example.
The first, a change to the frequency of the' ice condensor door test to 50% each 9 months from 25% each 6 months, 4
4-7590-01
, may initially extend the test period by three months but will eventually require more doors tested in a given period of time.
In an 18 month refueling cycle,100% of the doors would be tested by the new method versus 75% by the current requirements. The second change to add the Containment Service Air systems penetrating valves to the surveillance requirements table with isolation times is also like this example in that it would allow the system to be used in containment in modes above mode 5 but the qualification, testing, isolation times, isolation on Phase A signals are all within acceptab1'e criteria for these systems.
The third change to increase the miniflow on the Safety Injection System is also like the e~xample in that more miniflow w'll result in a small decrease of available flow to the core for small breaks but the analyses show that the ECCS/LOCA criteria are met and that the available net positive suction head is improved for all accident conditions.
This means that the pumps are less likely to cavitate and for a small loss of flow to the core which is acceptable for ECCS/LOCA, the continued operability and safety is improved on the pump suction side.
Another example, (ii), involves a change that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction, or control not presently included in the Technial Specifications.
The-change to reduce the reactor coolant system T from avg 578 F to 576.7'F (indicated) is a control not presently included in the Technical Specifications.
The licensee has operated under administrative controls with the T,yg (indicated) which accounts for instrumentation inaccuracies and this change is reflected in the licensee's proposal to include the control in the Technical Specifications.
The change to include
r 4
i 7590-01
.- the group demand counters in the Technical Specifications is also like this example.
In previous operations and specifically the calibrations of the rod position indicator (RPI) system, the licensee was unable to compare the group demand counters and RPI until the RPI's were calibrated. The NRC has previously found the group demand counters.to be sufficiently reliable that they can be used during the short time the RPI is being calibrated.
Thereafter, the. two can be compared to assure they do not differ by the 12 steps in the Technical Specifications.
Adding the group demand counters provides another control in the Technical Specifications.
Another example (iv), involves a relief granted upon demonstration of acceptable operation from an operating restriction that was imposed because acceptable operation was not yet demonstrated. The change to the license condition 2.C.3(p) to delete requirements for the seismic analysis of the fuel and revised calculation using'the RODEX 2 code is like this example in that license restrictions are proposed to be removed on the licensee's basis that analyses and calculations have been performed to methods and codes found acceptable and approved by.the NRC.
The seismic comparative analysis has been found acceptable by the staff in prior reviews and the R0DEX 2 code was approved by the NRC for use on pressurized water reactors on September 2, 1983.
The last example (i), cited in the amendment involves a purely administrative changes to Technical Specifications: for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the Technical Specifications, correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature.
A number of these changes are proposed, among other things, to correct reference to. Unit I and Unit 2 1-
F) 7590-01
~ monitors on the leakage detection systems, delete footnotes that are no longer applicable, remove references to first year of operation which has long since passed, and define " free of frost accumulation on. door operation" to actually be removal of ice, frost, and debris. None of these changes will alter or change current requirements or operation and are considered to be adminstrative in nature not to affect public health and safety.
As a result of the above consideration, the staff proposes to find that-the~ proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
Any coments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. The Commission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
Comments should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attn: Docketing and Service Branch.
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 who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene'. Request for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Conunission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in
r~
.c 7590-01 e 10 CFR Part 2.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commissien 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.
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) 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 alsn 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 fif teen (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 fif teen.(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
(
7590-01
- 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 amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 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 involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances m.
(o m.
7590-01 g.
change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Comission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves l
no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Comission 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.
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, D.C.
20555, Att: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C., by the above date. !!here petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the
. petitioner promptly so inform the Commissinn by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union operator at (800) 325-6000 '(in Missouri (800) 342-6700).
The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to Steven A. Varga, Branch Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No.1, Division of Licensing: petitioner's nane and telephone number; date petition was mailea plant name; and publication date and page number of the FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and to Gerald Charnoff, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 1800 M Street, N.W., Washington D.C.
- 20036, attorney for the licensee.
l 4
7590-01 f Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended i
r petitions, 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, that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for 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)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for the 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 Maude Preston Palenske Memorial Library, 500 Market Street, St.
Joseph, Michigan 49085.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 3rd day of April 1984.
W FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
C\\
}
rgkg i
, h ef L
Operating Reactors nch No. 1 Division of Licensing L
i 1
A
~
A