ML20058M350
| ML20058M350 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1990 |
| From: | Capra R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058M353 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008100062 | |
| Download: ML20058M350 (4) | |
Text
-
ev J=
oks+
a
^
i m.
(
a 7590-01
[
i
- i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC' COMPANY s
DOCKET NOS. 50-317.AND 50-318 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT. IMPACT iJ The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section.III.J. " Emergency Lighting," to the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 4
~(BG&E/ licensee)-fortheCalvertCliffsNuclearPowerPlant, Units 1and2, located at the licensee's site in Calvert County, Maryland.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT t
Identification of. Proposed Action:
The licensee would be exempted from the requirements of:10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R,Section III.J, to the extent that 8-hour portable handlights, kept
'in a charged state, would be available for exclusive use of the operations
-staff during a post-fire emergency in lieu of permanently installed 8-hour ~
. emergency lighting in specified areas within Unit 1 and Unit 2 containments.
The.Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed exemption'is needed as the result of the. licensee's investigation of.the deficiencies identified in its Licensee Event Report
.(LER)50-317/89-09. Several deficiencies were noted in the existing post-fire
+
alternative safe shutdown procedure (A0P-9), resulting in additional areas being identified, inside the containments of both units, which require emergency lighting to allow operators to access necessary equipment for safely shutting i
C QC0 7
PDC i
1 t
e I
l
\\
c
- s.,' ;
?
.: c 2
I down the units subsequent to a fire in accordance with the revised A0p-9.
'Specifically, it is necessary to operate auxiliary spray valves, loop charging isolation valves, safety injection tank isolation valves, and shutdown cooling return isolation valves.
The actions occur at various times during post-fire shutdown activities with the first containment entry occurring approximately 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after.the initiation of the event, in order to comply with the Section III.J requirement, emergency lighting would need to be installed to illuminate both the valves and _the access paths to them.
The licensee has proposed providing portable.handlights for use in containment but which would be staged outside of the containments.
s Specifically, the portable handlights will be of the rechargeable type with an 8-hou r ' duration. The portable handlights will be kept in recharging units, and-subjected to a-constant charge. Access to the portable handlights will be physically and administratively limited to operations personnel for emergency I
i use. The portable handlights will be tested on the same frequency as the other emergency lights at the facility, Environmental Impacts of the proposed. Action:
The proposed exemption will provide a degree of. fire protection that is equivalent to that required by Appendix R for the affected areas of the plant such that there.is no increase in the risk of fires at this facility.
Consequently, the probability of fires has not'been increased and the post-fire radiological. releases will not be greater than previously determined, nor does the proposed exemption otherwise affect radiological plant effluents.
Therefo?e, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with this proposed exemption.
L
J*
m 9
- s With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed-exemption involves features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect non-radiological plant' effluents 1
and have no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated i
with the proposed exemption.
ll Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Since the Comission has concluded there are no measurable environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. The principal alternative 4
to the exenption would be to:recuire rigid compliance with the applicable portions of Section 111.0 of the Appendix R requirements. Such action would not enhance the protection of the environment.
Installation of fixed emergency lichting in the containment is not consistent with the goals of reducing radiation exposure, A1. ARA, in terms of. installation, surveillance, and maintenance. The increased level of exposure and generated waste is not~
justified when a more reliable option clearly exists.
This action ir.volves no use of resources not previously considered in the
-Final Environmental Statement for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; dated April, 1973.
t k -
oc..
q E
p 4..
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
- The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated June 29, 1990.
This letter is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington. 0.C., and at the Calvert County Library, Prince Frederick, Maryland.
l Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of August 1990.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONiilSSION t
U 0-- - (V Robert A. Capra, Director Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
I i
-