ML20082G856
| ML20082G856 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082G852 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9504140041 | |
| Download: ML20082G856 (2) | |
Text
y i
pm4%q 9
f -
k_
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C, 20066 4 001 '
.....f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.183 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-69 BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-318 i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 24, 1995, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (the licensee) submitted a request for a change to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested change would revise Section 4.6.1.2.a of the TS, Primary Containment / Containment Leakage, to reference 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, as modified by approved-exemptions.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed change is administrative in nature. TS Section 4.6.1.2.a currently paraphrases 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, for the required frequency I
of the containment Integrated Leakage Rate Test (ILRT)'. The proposed change would revise Section 4.6.1.2.a to reference 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, as
'l modified by approved exemptions. The revised wording is consistent with that used in the revised Standard Technical Specifications for the required frequency of the ILRT. Since the change is administrative in. nature, in that l
it references the controlling regulations directly and recognizes approved exemptions, rather than paraphrasing the regulation, the NRC staff finds the proposed change to be acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Maryland State official l
was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official I
had no comments.
4,0 ENVIR0 MENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment changes surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 12789). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for
]
l 9504140041 950410 PDR ADOCK 05000318 "
P PDR
.. ~ _.
's 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 amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission 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 Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Harold Date: April 10, 1995 l
,., _..,.,,.