ML20128H597

Application for Amend to License DPR-53,changing Provisions for Receiving,Possessing & Using Byproduct,Source & Special Nuclear Matl at Plant

ML20128H597
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	10/03/1996
From:	Cruse C BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20128H600	List: ML20128H597 ML20128H603
References
NUDOCS 9610100005
Download: ML20128H597 (4)

Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

s CHAntxs II. CRUSE Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Vice President Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Nuclear Energy 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, Maryland 20657 410 495-4455 October 3,1996 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Document Control Desk

SUBJECT:

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. !; Docket No. 50-317 License Amendment Request: Change of License Provisions for Receiving, Possessing, and Using Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material at Calvert Cliffs Pursuant to Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50.90, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company hereby requests an amendment to Operating License Number DPR-53 to change the provisions for receiving, possessing, and using byproduct, source, and special nuclear material at Calvert Cliffs. The proposed changes are shown in Attachment (1). The final license page(s) will be renumbered as necessary to accommodate this change.

Currently, Unit 1 is licensed under 10 CFR Part 30 to receive, possess, and use 100 millicuries of byproduct material for sample analysis or instrument calibration,500 millicuries of byproduct material in the form of equipment; and 500 millicuries of Sodium-24 for steam turbine acceptance testing. In addition, Unit 1 is licensed to receive, possess and use 100 milligrams each of source or special nuclear material under 10 CFR Parts 40 and 70. Unit 2 is licensed under 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 to receive, possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source, or special nuclear material for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components. This proposed amendment would c6nge the Unit I license to be consistent with the Unit 2 license by replacing license conditions 2.B.3 and 2.B.4 with the same wording as Unit 2's license condition 2.B.4. The reason for this proposed change is that it is sometimes necessary to receive and use byproduct material, sources, or special nuclear material with different activity levels, and in different quantities than is specified by the Unit I license. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit I was granted a similar amendment on 7 March 31,1987. t The Unit I license was issued with a restriction of 100 millicuries of byproduct material and /

)\

500 millicuries of Sodium-24 in liquid form. That license was later amended to include additional contaminated equipment (Amendment No. 3, dated November 15, 1974). This resulted in license 9610100005 961003 PDR ADOCK 05000317 P PDR

Document Control Desk October 3,1996 Page 2 condition 2.B.3 which exists today. The Unit I license also contains a restriction on the amount of source and special nuclear material that we may possess and use in license condition 2.B.4. The Unit 2 license was issued about two years after the Unit I license. At that time, the Unit 2 license was issued without any restrictions concerning the form or amount of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material that could be used for sample analysis, instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components. That license condition still exists for Unit 2 today.

This has set up an unnecessary discrepancy between the two licenses. Unit 2 has no license restrictions on the possession and use of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material, while Unit I has several license restrictions. While the Unit I license restrictions may have been appropriate at the time the license was issued, they are no longer required. Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 are physically located on the same site and share the same personnel. Radioactive material is received by personnel assigned to the Radiation Safety Section. These personnel are trained in receiving and shipping contaminated material.

Once the material is onsite, it becomes the responsibility of the radiation protection staff who are trained in the handling of all levels of radioactive material. Training and procedures for handling radioactive materials have been developed and used over the 20-year life of the plant, and are adequate for compliance with the Unit 2 license. Therefore, we believe that there is no longer any benefit to defining different sets of standards for Unit I and Unit 2 and are requesting this license change.

The proposed change has been evaluated against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has bee, determined to not involve a significant hazards consideratio.. in that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment:

1. Would not involve a sigm*ficant increase in the probability or consequences ofan accident.

Currently, Unit 1 is licensed under 10 CFR Part 30 to receive, possess, and use 100 millicuries of byproduct material for sample analysis or instrument calibration,500 millicuries of byproduct material in the form of equipment; and 500 millicuries of Sodium-24 for steam turbine acceptance testing. Unit 1 is also licensed under 10 CFR parts 40 and 70 to receive, possess and use 100 milligrams of source or special nuclear material. Unit 2 is licensed under 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 to receive, possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source, or special nuclear material for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components. This proposed amendment would change the Unit I license to be consistent with the Unit 2 license. The reason for this proposed change is that it is sometimes necessary to receive and use byproduct material, sources, or special nuclear material with different activity levels, and in different quantities than is specified by the Unit I license.

The current licenses for the two units aC .;dioactive materials to be accepted and used at Unit 2, although these same materials would not be acceptable for use at Unit 1. These byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials are used by the same people and for the same function in either unit. Training and procedures for handling radioactive material have been developed and used at both Units over the last 20 years. These procedures are adequate to control the acceptance and use of radioactive material at Unit 2 and, therefore, adequate to control radioactive material at Unit 1.

- - - - - - . . - - - = - . - . - . . - - - - --

bocument Control Desk

.- October 3,1996 Page 3 Receiving, possessing, and using byproduct, source, or special nuclear material is not related to accident conditions. Therefore, changing the Unit I license conditions to be the same as the Unit 2 license condition does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident.

2. Would not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

Procedures and training governing the acceptance and use of radioactive materials are the same for both Unit I and Unit 2. These procedures will not be changed as a result of this license change. In addition, receiving, possessing, and using radioactive material is not related to accident conditions. Therefore, making the Unit I license the same as the Unit 2 license will not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Would not involve a sigmficant reduction in the margin ofsafety.

The margin of safety in this case is exposure to contaminated material or equipment. Exposure is controlled by adequate training and procedures. Radioactive material is received by personnel assigned to t' e Radiation Safety Section. These personnel are trained in receiving and shipping 1 contaminated saterial. Once the material is onsite, it becomes the responsibility of the radiation 1 protection staff who are trained in the handling of all levels of radioactive material. Training and i procedures for handling radioactive materials have been developed and used over the 20-year life I of the plant, and are currently deemed adequate for compliance with the Unit 2 license.

Therefore, making the Unit I license the same as the Unit 2 license will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

Operation of Unit I with the proposed amendment would not result in any significant difference in the types or amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite from Unit I than effluents which may be released offsite from Unit 2. Likewise, operation of Unit I would not result in any significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure beyond that considered in the operation of Unit 2. Therefore, the proposed amendment is eligible for categorical exclusion as set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR S t.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment is needed in connection with the proposed amendment.

These proposed changes to the license and our determination of significant hazards have been reviewed l by our Plant Operations Safety Review Committee and Offsite Safety Review Committee, and they have concluded that implementation of these changes will not result in an undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

This change is requested to be approved by April 1,1997. No operation of the facility is dependent on approval.

document Control Desk

. October 3,1996 Page 4 Should you have questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Very truly yours, c r,7 // s.P STATE OF MARYLAND  :

TO WIT:

COUNTY OF CALVERT  :

I hereby certify that on the 31Ld> day of b ,19 76. before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State of Maryland in and for CAllAAL) Cetbyth . personally appeared Charles 11. Cruse, being duly sworn, and states that he is Vice Presidqdt of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, a corporation of the State of Maryland; that he provides the foregoing response for the purposes therein set forth; that the statements made are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief; and that he was authorized to provide the response on behalf of said Corporation.

WITNESS my 11and and Notarial Seal: DNfd 'k Udfl)

Notary Public My Commission Expires: b 3 Date CliC/EMT/ dim

Attachment:

(1) Unit 1 Marked-Up License l

cc: II. J. Miller, NRC l D. A. Brune, Esquire '

J. E. Silberg, Esquire Resident Inspector, NRC l Director, Project Directorate 1-1, NRC R.1. McLean, DNR A. W. Dromerick. NRC J.11. Walter, PSC l