ML20141K107
| ML20141K107 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141K093 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601220221 | |
| Download: ML20141K107 (2) | |
Text
.
purg4 UNITED STATES 8
N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.112 AND 95 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-53 AND DPR-69 BALTIM0RE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318 i
Introduction By application for license amendment dated April 26, 1985, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2.
The proposed amendments would change the Unit i and Unit 2 TS 4.6.1.2a to allow completion of the third containment Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) prior to the 10-year Inservice Inspection (ISI) outage.
Discussion and Evaluation The existing Calvert Cliffs TS 4.6.1.2a references Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50 and requires that: "Three Type A tests (Overall Integrated Containment Leakage Rate) shall be conducted at 40 10 month intervals during shutdown at either P (50 psig) or at Pt (25 psig) during each 10-year service period. Th8 third test of each set shall be conducted during the shutdown for the 10-year plant inservice inspection." Performance of the third ILRT during the 10-year ISI outage which is required by Appendix J would result in the violation of the more frequent 40 10 month interval required by the TS.
Accordingly, the licensee has requested a change to the ILRT schedule, as reflected in TS 4.6.1.2a, to allow the third ILRT to be conducted earlier l
than required by Appendix J and to eliminate the reference to the Appendix J i
10-year inspection. The proposed schedule would satisfy the 40 10 month l
inspection interval requirement of TS 4.6.1.2a which is of primary importance because of the more frequent maintenance of containment integrity through the i
ILRT program. The coincidence of the third ILRT with the 10-year ISI outage is of clearly secondary importance for this schedule change. An exemption from Appendix J to allow earlier containment testing is being considered in a separate but parallel action.
The proposed change to TS 4.6.1.2a would only affect the scheduling of one of three Type A tests during each 10-year service period; the scheduling of the two remaining Type A tests would not be affected. The maximum impact of scheduling on the third Type A test would be minor and amount to the duration of one refueling cycle. Moreover, the impact would not be cumulative since each 10 year service period would start a new Type A test schedule. Accordingly, the staff finds the proposed change to TS 4.6.1.2a to be acceptable.
8601220221 e60100
^
g7 l
DR ADOCK 0
. Finally, the licensee has proposed deletion of the footnote associated with TS 4.6.1.2a.
This footnote provides specific dates for completion of the third ILRT for Calvert Cliffs. This footnote would no longer be necessary since any ILRT test would be conducted on a 40 10 month interval, regardless of the ISI schedule. Accordingly, deletion of the footnote associated with TS 4.6.1.2a affects neither ISI nor ILRT schedules, is administrative in nature, and is acceptable.
Environmental Consideration These amendments involve a change in surveillance requirements. The 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 exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec. 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 these amendments.
Conclusion We have 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, and (2) 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:
January 8,1985 Principal Contributor:
D. Jaffe l
-_ - -