ML20028H531
| ML20028H531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028H527 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9101090073 | |
| Download: ML20028H531 (3) | |
Text
. _. _ _ _ _ _
ag q
((pragg\\
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
= r, j
wAsHiwoTON, D. C. 20555
\\*...+/
j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
-RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.150 ' TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO DPR-53 AND AMENDMENT NO.132 TO FACillTY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-69 BALTIM0RE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY C_AlfERT CllFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT) UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318 1.0 INTRODUCT10N-By letter dated August 28, 1990, Baltimore Gas and Electric Compan'y (the licensee)~,
proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) and its supporting Basest for Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 and 2.-
The proposed changes remove the provision,
of Specification 4.0.2= that limits the combined time interval for three consecutive surveillances to less than 3.25 times the specified interval. -Guidance on this proposed change to:the-TS was~provided to all power reactor-licensees and applicants by Generic letter 89-14. "Line-Item Improvements in Technical Specifications - Removal of the 3.'25 Limit on extending Suveillance Intervals,"
dated. August 21.-1989.
2.0 EVALUATION,
-Specification:4.0.2 includes the provision that allows a surveillance interval to be extended by 25 percent of-the specified time interval. This-extension provides flexibility for scheduling the performance of surveillances
-and pennits consideration _of plant operating conditions that may not~ be suitable for conducting a surveillance at the specified time interval.- Such.
-operating conditions include transient plant operation or ongoing surveillance or maintenance activities.
Specification 4.0.2 further limits-the allowance for extending surveillance: intervals by requiring that the combined time -
interval for any three consecutive surveillances not exceed 3.25 times the-specified time-interval. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that i
surveillances are not extended repeatedly as an operational convenience to provide lan'overall increase in-the surveillance interval.
Experience'has shown that the 18-month surveillance interval, with the l
provision to extend it by 25 oercent, is usually sufficient to acconnodate normal variations in the length of a fuel cycle.
However, the NRC staff has s
routinely granted requests for one-time exceptions to the 3.25 limit on extending refueling surveillances because the risk to safety is. low in contrast L
t to the' alternative of a force 0 shutdown to perform these surveillances.
E Therefore, the'3.25 limitation an. extending surveillances-has not been a F
practical limit on the use of the 25-percent allowance for extending surveillances that are performed on a refueling outage basis.
9'1'01090073 910102 PDR ADOCK 05000317 P
PDn t
~
$3
. Extending surveillance intervals during plant operation can also result in a i
benefit to safety when a scheduled surveillance is due at a time that is not suitable for conducting the surveillance. This may occur when transient plant operating conditions exist or when safety systems are out of service for maintenance or other surveillance activities, in such cases, the benefit to safety of extending a surveillance interval would exceed any safety benefit gained by limiting the use of the 25-percent allowance to extend a surveillance.
Furthemore, there is the administrative burden associated with tracking the use of the 25-percent allowance to ensure compliance with the 3.25 limit.
In view of these findings, the staff concluded that Specification 4.0.2 should be changed to remove the 3.25 for all surveillances because its removal will have an overall positive effect on safety. The guidance provided in G6neric Letter 89-14 included the following change to this specification and removes the 3.25 limit on three consecutive surveillances with tne following statement:
"4.0.2 Each Surveillance Requirement shall be performed within the specified surveillance interval with a maximum allowable extension not to exceed 25 percent of the specified surveillance interval."
In addition, the Bases of this specification was updated to reflect this change and noted that the intent of the allowance for extending surveillance intervals is not a means to repeatedly extend surveillance intervals for operstional convenience beyond that specified for surveillances that are not performed during refueling outages.
3.0
SUMMARY
The licensee has submitted the proposed changes to Specification 4.0.2 and its supporting Bases that are consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 89-14, as noted above. Based on the results of our review of this matter, the staff finds the changes to the Specification 4.0.2 ard its supporting Bascs for Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 and 2, to be acceptable.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of the facilities' components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR part 20. The staff has determined that these amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment 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 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Ccmmission's determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards _consdieration was published-in the Federal Reaister (55 FR 42093) on October 17, 1989. The Commission consulted with the state of Maryland. No public connents were received, and the State of Maryland did not have any contents.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1)there is reasonable assurcoce 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 these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or
-to the health and safety of tha public.
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS:
Thomas G. Dunning Serf?,a Sanders Daniel-G. Mcdonald Dated: January 2, 1991 l
e l
i
--