ML20077C608
| ML20077C608 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20077C607 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9412050312 | |
| Download: ML20077C608 (2) | |
Text
__
UNITED STATES i
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
%..... /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 201 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-53 AND AMENDMENT NO.179 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-69 BALTIM0RE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 QQCKET NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318 i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 2,1994, 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 changes would revise the action statement of TS 3.9.1 and the requirements of TS 3.1.2.7 to clarify the requirements when the required refueling boron concentration is g..ater than 2300 ppm.
2.0 EVALUATION During refueling operations, Calvert Cliffs Technical Specification 3.9.1,
" Refueling Operations - Boron Concentration,"
requires the boron concentration of all filled portions of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) and refueling pool be sufficient to maintain k g 0.95.
The boron concentration necessary to achieve this core reactivity is specified in the Core Operating Limits Report. This amount of shutdown margin is sufficient to ensure that the core will remain subcritical during core alterations and anticipated accidents.
In the event that the boron concentration falls below the required concentration, TS 3.9.1 requires the core alterations'or positive reactivity changes be immediately ceased, and that boration ;t 40 gpm of 2300 ppm boric acid, or its equivalent, be continued until the boron concentration is within its limits. Currently, if the boron concentration limit is greater than 2300 ppm, borating with 2300 ppm water will not restore boron to the required concentration. Therefore, the operator must interpret the "or its equivalent" phrase and begin boration with a higher concentration in order to restore the required refueling boron concentration. The proposed change would revise the action statement to explicitly require the operator to immediately initiate actions to restore the boron concentration to within its limits.
TS 3.1.2.7, " Borated Water Sources - Shutdown," gives the operability requirement for borated water sources including the Refueling Water Tank (RWT), in Modes 5 and 6.
The minimum boron concentration is given as 2300 9412050312 941129 PDR ADOCK 05000317 P
l
. l ppe. While this minimu? value is correct for mode 5, a larger boron concentration may be necessary in Mode 6.
The RWT is the preferred borated i
water source for restoring the required boron concentration as required by TS 3.9.1.
Therefore, the RWT boron concentration in Mode 6 should be at least be that required by TS 3.9.1.
The proposed change to TS 3.1.2.7 would clarify the boron concentration requirements.
In Mode 5, 2300 ppm will continue to be required. In Mode 6, the boron concentration limit for the RWT will be the boron concentration limit given in TS 3.9.1.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comnission's regulations, the Maryland State official
[
was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official i
had no coments.
4.0 iMIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION l
The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a i
facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR l
Part 20. 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 offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation i
exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the j
amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding (59 FR 47164). 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 1
the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Harold Date:
November 29, 1994
+