ML20205F799
| ML20205F799 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205F769 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608190330 | |
| Download: ML20205F799 (3) | |
Text
,
.f *%['
UNITED STATES
'e
^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N05.120 AND 102 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-53 AND DPR-69 BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318 Introduction By applications for license amendments dated April 10, 1985 and April 14, 1986, the Baltimore Gas & Electric Company (BG&E) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2.
The following proposed technical specification changes are in partial response to BG&E's application dated April 14, 1986. The remaining two issues will be addressed in separate correspondence. The first proposed technical specification (T5) change is also in response to BG&E's application dated April 10, 1985 and would complete our action on this request. The proposed TS changes are:
1.
Change Units 1 & 2 TS 4.1.2.2c surveillance requirement to allow verification of baron injection flow patn on SIAS sional at least every 18 months during any time period.
2.
Change Units 1 & 215 to incorporate the Main Steam Header Noble Gas Effluent Monitor (TS Tables 3.3-6 and 4.3-3) as per guidance provided in Generic Letter 83-37. Several related administrative changes are 21sa submitted with this proposed TS.
3.
Change Uni
? TS Table 3.3-9, " Remote Shutdown Monitoring Instrumentation", thus recognizing the "as-is" plant design.
Discussion and Evaluation Change No. I proposes to change the surveillance (TS 4.1.2.2c) which requires verification of the proper operation of components in the baron injection flow paths on a SIAS test signal every 18 months during shutdown. This proposal would delete the "during shutdown" restriction and allow this test to be performed at any time.
This change was previously proposed for Unit 2 in l
BG&E's April 10, 1985 amendment request, j
Operability of the boron injection flow path is important to safety in that flow from baron injection is credited in the analysis of the small break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). Testing of the boron injection flow path during reactor operation would not completely disable the boron injection capability in that at least two flow paths would still be available for emergency use during testing. Moreover, the boron injection flow paths being tested would be unavailable during only a short period of time during which a concurrent LOCA would be unlikely.
8608190330 060306 PDR ADOCK 0D000317 P
. Accordingly, based upon the above, the proposed change to TS 4.1.,2.2c is acceptable in that, even during testing, adequate flow from boron injection would be available in accordance with the assumptions used in the small break LOCA analysis.
Change No. 2 would incorporate the Main Steam. Header Noble Gas Effluent Mcnitor into TS Tables 3.3-6 and 4.3-3.
This ch r;e is being proposed as requested by NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements," and further guided by Generic Letter 83-37, "NUREG-0737 Technical Specifications."
The proposed changes to the TS incorporate Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements in the TS which ensure a h'igh degree of certainty that the main steam header noble gas effluent monitor will be available, post-accident, to provide an important assessment capability. Accordingly, the proposed changes to TS Tables 3.3-6 and 4.3-3 are acceptable.
Several administrative changes to the TS have also been proposed as a part of Change No. 2.
The licensee has proposed to correct several typographical errors on Unit 2 TS pages 3-27.
In addition, a footnote in Unit I and 2 TS Table 4.3-3 would be deleted in that it applied to a previously deleted TS; thus, the footnote is no longer needed.
The proposed changes described above are minor in nature and do not effect any regulatory requirements in the TS. Accordingly, these changes to the TS are acceptable.
BG&E has also proposed a change to the Bases for TS 3/4.3.3.1. A previous license amendment transferred control of the iodine and particulate sampling program to Section 6.0 of the Technical Specifications. Therefore, the Bases 'or Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation should be updated by removing reference to the iodine and particulate samplers. This change to the TS Bases is acceptable.
Change No. 3 would modify the range of the pressurizer pressure instrumentation installed on the Unit 2 remote shutdown panel. At the present time, TS 3.3-9 "Femote Shutdown Monitoring Instrumentation," describes the Pressurizer Pressure indicating range as 0-1600 psia. Recently installed, upgraded, instrumentation for press sizer pressure on the remote shutdown panel has a range of 0-4000 psia. This proposed change to the TS was previously approved for Unit 1.
The remote shutdown instrumentation is provided for monitoring purposes only.
The instrumentation does not provide inputs for automatically actuated equipment.
This change simply recognizes the expanded range of the improved instrumentation.
Based upon the above, the proposed change to TS Table 3.3-9 is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility I
component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or l
a change in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant l
. change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public connent on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR
$51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.22(b), n'o environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasenable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: August 6, 1986 Principal Contributor:
D. H. Jaffe e,-
l l
"' t. m
' ^ ~