ML20034C648
| ML20034C648 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034C646 | List: |
| References | |
| IEIN-86-076, IEIN-86-76, NUDOCS 9005040280 | |
| Download: ML20034C648 (3) | |
Text
l h-Y,.,,(y u a
9,,
UNITED STATES y
- g
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D, C. 20656
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION-RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.142 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-53 AND AMENDMENT NO. 125TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-69 BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY i
CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANTJ UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318
'y
1.0 INTRODUCTION
-.By letter dated August 30, 1989, supplemented by letter dated danuary 12,.-1990, the Baltimore Gas and Electric CompanyLrequested amendments to the Technical Specifications for Calvert Cliffs Unit-Nos. 1 and 2.
The proposal would change-
-the technica1' specifications for the following systems:-
(1) containment iodine removal l
(2) penetration room exhaust air filtration 1
i (3) control room emergency ventilation (4) ECCS pump' room exhaust air filtration, and (5) spent fuel pool ventilation The proposed changes concern obtaining and analyzing charcoal. adsorbent samples, in-place testing of the HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers, and verification of control room isolation on'a high radiation signal.
2.0 EVALUATION Four changes were proposed as described and evaluated below.
The proposal would change, from 130*C to 30*C, the temperature at which the laboratory analysis of charcoal adsorbent samples is conducted. This applies i
to each of the systems listed above, except for the containment iodine removal system. The licensee stated that the 30*C test temperature is more indicative of the accident conditions to which these adsorbers would be subjected and _therefore, will yield more realistic test results. The change also will caus,e the test results to be more conservative than the present test results. As described in Information Notice 86-76, testing of carbon adsorbent samples at 30'C yields lower iodine removal efficiencies than testing at 130'C,(tested charcoal) having to be replaced by unused-charcoal becau thereby increasing the likelihood of the used charcoal in the adsorber l'
the test results.
9005040280 900427 PDR ADOCK 03000317 1
P PDC
..o.
2-The )roposal would change, from two to one, the number of required samples to
~
be o)tained for laboratory analysis of charcoal adsorbent. This change applies to all five systems. The licensee stated that the intent was to-remove two samples in case one became unstable, but to test only one. -.Taking one sample will still give a representative sample. Current regulatory guidance and industry practice do net indicate a need for more than one sample.
The_ proposal would change,.for all five systems, the wording of the
. requirement for in-place testing of the HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers so that testing is in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 2, March 1978, Regulatory Positions C.5.a. C.S.c and C.S.d (as appropriate) rather than, as currently, ANSI N510-1975. ; Regulatory Positions C.5.3.10.5.c, and C.5 d refer to ANSI N510-1975. The licensee stated that this change is i
administrative.
l The-proposal would clarify the present requirement to verify that the control j
room emergency ventilation system isolation valves close on a high radiation test signal. The clarification would change'the wording to require that both j
of the isolation valves in each inlet duct and common exhaust duct, and the isolation valve in the toilet area exhaust duct, close.
]
The staff has reviewed the licensee't evaluation and concurs with the licensee's conclusions. The staff has'further determined that the proposed changes are consistent with the intent of 10 CFR:Part 50,-Appendix A, General Design Criteria.19, 41, 42, and 61;-NUREG-0800, Standard-Review Plan Sections 6.4 and 6.5.1; and the Standard Technical Specifications. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed changes acceptable-
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change-in a requirement with respect to the installation or use of the facilities' components. located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments-involve no significant hazards consideration and:there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eli criteriaforcategoricalexclusion-setforthin10CFRSec51.22(c)(gibility.
9).
Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b)noenvironmentalimpactstatementorenvironmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the-issuance of these amendments, i
l
4
.s,
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: '(1) there is reasonable 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 these amendments will not be inimical to.the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:
C. Nichols Dated: April 27. 1990 i
4 4
l 1
1