ML20072S903
| ML20072S903 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 09/06/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072S891 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9409140286 | |
| Download: ML20072S903 (3) | |
Text
. -. _ -. _.-
pQ Qf G 4
UNITED STATES
., e
[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20585-0001 s+.***/
SAFETf EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 196 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-53.
AND AMENDMENT NO. 173 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-69 BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318
1.0 INTRODUCTION
j By letter dated June 8,1994, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear. Power Plant, Units Nos. I and 2, Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested 1
changes would revise Section 4.6.2.2.b to extend'the Containment Air Cooling (CAC) System surveillance frequency to accommodate the 24-month fuel cycles currently in use at Calvert Cliffs. As requested in Generic Letter (GL).
)
91-04, " Changes In Technical Specification Surveillance' Intervals To Accommodate a '24-month Fuel Cycle,". the licensee provided.an evaluation in support of the change which concludes the effect on safety is small and does not invalidate any assumption-in the plant licensing basis.
2.0 EVALUATION Subsequent to increasing the refueling interval from 18 ' months to 24 months, the licensee requested amendments to the TSs of both units which added the definition " Refueling' Interval - at least once per 24-months"'to. Table 1.2 of TS Definition 1.22, " Frequency Notation." The requested amendments adding the 24-month definition do not change the existing definition for "R -.at least once per 18-months." The 18-month frequency definition is'necessary to assure the safety-related systems and components which have not yet been approved for 24-month surveillance intervals have their surveillances performed at the required 18-months intervals. This is accomplished during scheduled mid-cycle.
surveillance / maintenance outages until all the_ safety-related systems and components have been approved for the 24-month refueling interval. The Comission issued Amendment No.133 to Facility Operating License No..DPR-53 and Amendment No. 114 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-69 for Units Nos.
I and 2, respectively, by letter dated December 21, 1988,- which included the definition for a 24-month Refueling Interval.
The changes were consistent with the current guidance in GL 91-04 and, therefore, no othe.r changes are necessary in relation to defining the existing surveillance intervals in the TS to support the requested changes to the CAC system surveillance intervals.
9409140286 940906 PDR ADOCK 05000317 P
?
- The CAC system cools the containment atmosphere limiting containment pressure following postIllated accident conditions such as a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) or a Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) in containment.
In addition, the CAC system is used to maintain containment temperature during normal operation.
The CAC system consists of four cooling units inside containment which circulate service water through air cooling coils. The service water return line for each cooler has one manual and two air-operated stop valves, all in l
parallel. The air-operated valves can be controlled from the Control Room (CR). One control valve is used for normal cooling requirements and the other control valve opens automatically on receipt of a Containment Spray Actuation Signal (CSAS). After a LOCA or MSLB, the fans are run in slow speed.
All fan motors may be manually started or stopped from the CR. All four fan motors start automatically in, or switch to, slow speed on receipt of a Safety Injection Actuation Signal (SIAS). TS 4.6.2.2.b verifies that the CAC system i
fans and valves operate properly on receipt of a SIAS and CSAS.
GL 91-04 states that for cases where 18-month surveillances do not involve calibration of instruments that perform safety functions, licensees should l
evaluate the effect on safety of the change in surveillance intervals which supports a conclusion that the effect on safety is small.
Licensees should confirm that historical maintenance and surveillance data do not invalidate this conclusion.
An evaluation of the CAC surveillances from 1983 to 1994 found no surveillance test failures. The 18-month surveillance is similar to the monthly surveillance in that both surveillances test system response to a SIAS and CSAS. The 18-month surveillance differs only in that the SIAS and CSAS to the plant equipment are not blocked.
The staff has determined that the increase in the surveillance interval from 18 months to 24 months for CAC system surveillance as specified in TS 4.6.2.2.b is acceptable.
This determination is based on the historical data which indicates that extending the surveillance interval will not adversely affect the ability to detect degradation in the CAC system and does not invalidate any assumption in the plant licensing basis.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Maryland State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
l The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released l
l
t L-
_3_
l offsite, and that there'is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a.
proposed finding-that the amendments involve no significant~ hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 37063). Accordingly, the 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 the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above,.
4 that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance.that the health and safety of the.
public will 'not be endangered by operation in' the proposed manner, (2): such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety.of = the public.
j Principal Contributor:
J. Harold l
Date: September 6, 1994 I
i i
r
. _.