ML20062E941
| ML20062E941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062E940 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208110003 | |
| Download: ML20062E941 (2) | |
Text
7 UNITED STATES
["
h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
l WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 74 AND 55 TO_
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES NOS. DPR-53 AND DPR-69 BALTIM0RE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NOS.1 & 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318 Introduction By application for License Amendment dated July 20, 1982, Baltimore Gas and Electric (BG&E) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2.
The proposed change to TS 3.6.5.1 would extend the date for operability of the Calvert Cliffs Hydrogen Analyzers from August 1, 1982 to September 30, 1982.
This extension is required so that BG&E can complete modifications required by the NRC under TMI Action Item II.F.1.6, " Hydrogen Level Monitoring".
Discussion On November 6, 1981, the NRC issued Amendments 60 and 42 to the Operating Licenses for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2, respectively.
These license amendments provided changes to TS 3.6.5.1 which permitted one of two i
containment Hydrogen Analyzers to be inoperable, at one given time, until August 1, 1982, for the purpose of performing modifications required by the NRC under TMI Action Item II.F.1.6, " Hydrogen Level Monitoring".
The TS changes also permitted the reactors to be started up with a single Hydrogen Analyzer inoperable.
By application dated July 20, 1982, BG&E informed the NRC that they were experiencing difficulty during the start-up testing of one modified Hydrogen Analyzer.
Since BG&E does not expect to have completed start-up testing of this Hydrogen Analyzer by August 1, 1982, they have requested an extension to September 30, 1982 to allow this analyzer to be inoperable for the purpose of start-up testing..
Evaluation BG&E has informed us that one of the two modified Hydrogen Analyzers has been installed and successfully undergone start-up testing and is now operable.
The second unit, while installed, is undergoing start-up delays due to an unforseen delay in receipt of parts required to complete start-up testing.
TESlCT:] CTCCInL i
c",'
i 8208110003 020730 PDR ADOCK 05000317 P
PDR 9
- As indicated in our Safety Evaluation Report (SER) issued on November 6, 1981, a single Hydrogen Analyzer is sufficient to perform post-LOCA hydrogen sampling for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2.
The use of hydrogen " grab sam-ples" provides a back-up capability for the hydrogen analyzer system.
These and other safety issues associated with reactor operation for an extended period with a single Hydrogen Analyzer were previously addressed in our November 6, 1981 SER.
Accordingly, since the issues associated with reactor operation with a single Hydrogen Analyzer have 'een previously addressed, and since there is reason-o able assurance that the testing of a single Hydrogen Analyzer can be com-pleted by September 30, 1982, the proposed change to TS 3.6.5.1 is appro-priate and acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environnental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these anenaments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, do not. create the possibility of an accident of a type different from l
any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3)~ such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will l
not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
~
Date:
July 30, 1982 l
Principal Contributor:
D. H. Jaffe 1