ML20069G110
| ML20069G110 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20069G098 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8209280452 | |
| Download: ML20069G110 (3) | |
Text
4 13 UNITED STATES e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.db l)',n WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Qa l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N05. 76 AND 57 TO.
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES NOS. DPR-53 AND DPR-69 BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT N05. 1 & 2
~
DOCKET NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318 Introduction By application for license amendment dated August 26, 1982, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) requested changes to the Technical Specifica-tions (TS) for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2.
The proposed change would allow continued operation of Unit 1 for up to 21 days _with one control room air conditioning unit inoperable, during the October 1982 Unit 2 refueling outage. This change would be incorporated as part of Unit 1 TS 3/4.7.6, " Control Room Emergency Ventilation System." In addition to the above change, BG&E has requested that the comparable wording presently contained in Unit 2 TS 3/4.7.6 be deleted.
Discussion On April 16, 1982 the NRC issued Amendment No. 51 to the Operating. License for Calvert Cliffs Unit 2.
This amendment added the following provision to Unit 2 TS 3/4.7.6:
"For the period from April 17, 1982 to' July 21, 1982, with Unit 1 in Modes 5 and 6 and one air conditioning unit inoperable, restore the inoperable unit to OPERABLE status within 21 days or be in at least HOT STANDBY within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in COLD SHUTDOWN within the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />."
The above condition had been requested in order to perform certain modifi-cations during the Unit I refueling outage. Those modifications involved l
changes to the control room ventilation system and changes to the Unit I electrical syyten,: necessary for modifications to the Unit 1 auxiliary l
feedwater system. The change to TS 3/4.7.6 had been based upon calcula-tions performed by BG&E indicating that a single control room air condi-tioning unit is sufficient to fully accomplish the design objectives of the control room ventilation system to limit the temperature in the control room to within required bounds.
By application dated August 26, 1982, BG&E. requested a change to Unit 1 TS 3/4.7.6 which is comparable to that previously issued for Unit 2 with Amendment 51. The purpose of this change is to allow modifications to be DESIGNA ED ORIGINAL 0209280452 820921 CortifiedB[y
/M2h/M/M DR ADOCK 05000317 PDR
- v y-y--.-~.
2-made to the Unit 2 control room ventilation and electrical systems, during the Unit 2 refueling outage, similar to those performed at Unit 1 during the Unit 1 refueling outage.
Evaluation The propcsed change to Unit 1 TS 3/4.7.6 is slightly different from the comparable Unit 2 TS change issued with Amendment No. 51. The proposed Unit 1 TS change would not specify a definite time interval for applica-bility (in the case of Unit 2, this was April 17, 1982 to July 21,1982).
Instead, the Unit 1 TS change provides for a comparable interval corresponding to "...the duration of the October 1982 Unit 2 refueling outage." Other features of the proposed Unit 1 TS change remain the same as issued for Unit 2.
As with Amendment 51, the proposed change to TS 3/4.7.6 is based upon the BG&,E calculations which demonstrate the adequacy of a single control room air conditioning unit to limit the temperature in the control room.
Under existing requirements, two air conditioning units are required to be operable.
The increased flexibility permitted by the proposed change, in that a time interval is not specified, is offset by the decreased demand for control room air conditioning during the fall and winter months of the Unit 2 refueling outage. Accordingly, based upon the considerations presented we conclude that the proposed change to Unit 1 TS 3/4.7.6 is within the bounds of the safety considerations which were reviewed in'the issuance of Amendment 51 to the Operating License for Unit 2.
It is therefore appropriate to add the following as a footnote to Unit 1 TS 3/4.7.6, Action b:
"*For the duration of the October 1982 Unit 2 refueling outage with Unit 2 in MODES 5 or 6 and one air conditioning unit inoperable, restore the inoperable unit to operable status within 21 days or be in at least HOT STANDBY within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in COLD SHUTDOWN within the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />."
In addition, in accordance with the August 26, 1982 application, the foot-note to Unit 2 TS 3/4.7.6 Action b, should be delc^ed rince its applica-bility terminated on July 21, 1982. This action,
so:inistrative and has no effect on facility safety.
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 environmental 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 amendments.
__"ap
}F#8 4e
- u*@***
e7'****T
+*W
- * */% e tv
- F"**V WW G
'9N***.
- "*9"N%
"'-P*W'"*
3-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 any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant reduction in a margir. 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 not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: September 21, 1982 Principal Contributor:
D. H. Jaffe O
e a
e
=e 9
+-e t77
.my.rs.m s j *..,. e gme.%..=gwws
=.4.e-->,*,%,.s.,,..
. e 4w~._.
...,w%
..%,e
_