ML20085B639
| ML20085B639 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20085B637 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9108020327 | |
| Download: ML20085B639 (3) | |
Text
,.~-~~
~
.N f#A%
?%-
' t, UNITED STATES m
,1 p
,i.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
a WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666
. '%p y
- ...+
SAFETY EVALUATION.BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION d
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 158 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-53
["'i AMENDMENT:NO.138 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0_. DPR-69 BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS. I AND 2 00Ckti NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318 110 INTRODUCTION By letter of..May 24, 1991, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (the licensee) proposed a change to the technical specifications (TS) for Calvert Cliffs
' Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The' proposed change removes TS Table 4.4-5 which provides the schedule for reactor vessel material specimen withdrawal.
Guid6nce on the proposed TS change was-provided by Generic Letter 31-01, dated
' January 4,1991, to all holders of operatino licenses of construction permits
[-
for nuclear power reactors.
l l~
-2.0 _ EVALUATION Technical Specification 3/4.4.9, " Pressure / Temperature Limits," contains a L
limiting condition for operation for the Reactor Coolant.-System (RCS) that limits the rate of change :in temperature and pressure to-values consistent with the fracture toughness requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code and Appendix G-to Part 50=of Title 10 of the Code of
~ Federal Reg'Jlations-(10 CFR Part 50). Changes in the values of these limits
.are necessary because the fracture toughness properties-of ferritic materials in the reactor vessel change as a: function of the reactor operating ; time
.(neutron-fluence).
y For'this reason,lthe-TS include a surveillance requirement, TS 4.4.9.1.2, to require-the removal and examination of the irradiated specimens of reactor vessel material. The licensee examines the specimens to determine the changes l
in' material properties in accordance with the requirements of Appendix H to 10LCFR Part 50
' Table 4.4-5 identifies the material specimens _and specifies L
the schedule for removal of each specimen.
L l
ADOCK 0500933,
'P_
k
, The removal of the schedule for withdrawing material specimens from the TS will eliminate the necessity of a license amendment to make changes to this schedule. However,Section I.B.3 of Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the submittal of a proposed withdrawal schedule for mP erial specimens to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and approval by the NRC before imple-mentation. Hence, adequate regulatory controls exist to control changes to this schedule without the necessity of subjecting it to the license amendment process by including it in TS.
BG&E has provided this schedule in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Table 4-13.
In addition, BG&E will include any subsequent NRC-approved revisions to this schedule in an update of the UFSAR.
The inclusion of the withdrawal schedule in the UFSAR provides a source for this information that is readily available as a reference for NRC inspectors and other staff use.
- Finally, the surveillance requirements for removing material specimens remain unchanged except for the removal of the reference to Table 4.4-5 and updating the Bases Section.
BG&E proposed changes to TS 4.4.9.2.1 that deleted "shown in Table 4.4-5" in reference to the intervals for removing and examining reacter vessel material irradiation surveillance specimens and replaced this reference with " required by 10 CFR Pan 50, Appendix H."
This could be misinterpreted to imply that Appendix H defines the withdrawal schedule, which it does not. The TS change is more clearly understood in terms of the statement of this specification in the standard technical specifications that refer to "as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H" in the context for the specimens " removed and examined" rather than in the context of the " intervals" for removing and examining specimens that are currently shown in Table 4.4-5.
Therefore, this matter has been discussed with the licensee and mutually resolved by revising the proposal for TS 4.4.9.2.1 to delete "at the intervals shown in Table 4.4-5" and replacing it with "as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H."
This change is for clarity only and has no impact on the initial no significant hazards consideration determination.
Therefore, the NRC staff has reviewed this matter and finds that the proposed changes, as revised, to the TS for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, are consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 91-01 and are acceptable.
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
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 to the surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has
4 i 1 determined that the amendments irc/olve 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 amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public concent on such finding (56 FR 29269). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eli forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility criteria for categorical exclusion set 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, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endanget ed by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Connission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the conoon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
T. Dunning D. Mcdonald Date:
July 30,1991
______-_._ _ _ - --.-- - - - - -