ML20198B461
| ML20198B461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198B466 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9801060325 | |
| Download: ML20198B461 (1) | |
Text
.
% j sole MTC limitation for core design and operation. The licensee pointed out that although this consideration has little effect on how BGE will design their future cores the propMed TS limit on the maximum positive MTC as the sole requirement for core design and operation, with respect to a limit on positive MTC. he1ps to clarify Calvert Cliff's licensing basis.
The staff i
finds the statement of the licensing basis to be acceptable.
2.3 Etaff Conclusion-The staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed TS changes for Calvert Cliffs l
Nuclear Power Plant. Unit Nos. I and 2.
Based on the staff's evaluation of
~
the submittal of March 28. 1996, and the responses to request for additional information, dated November 20, 1996, and July 31. 1997 the staff approves the TS change Nos.= 1 and 2. to figure 3.1.1-1 for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. Unit The )roposed change makes the limit on the maximum positive MTC more restrictive.
Trom an operational standpoint, a more restrictive limit on MTC will help mit19 ate the effect of plant transients of control of plant i
paramete'4 (e.g.
reactor power pressurizer pressure, pressurizer level.
etc.)' Therefore, consequences of the previousiv analyzed accident will be l
significantly decreased and the staff finds this change acceptable.
3.0 filAIL(ONSULTATION in accordarce with the Commission's regulations. the Maryland State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 J E IRONMFNTAL CONSIDERATION The amr ents change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facilit mponant located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
he NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no signific6... 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 iridividual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve ao significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on sLch finding (61'FR 20843). 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 Comission has concitMed. based on the considerations discussed above.
that:
(1) there is reasoeable assurance that the health and safet public will not be endange ed by operation in the proposed manner.y of the (2) such activities will be conducttd in compliancG 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 53fety of the public.
EToE EM17 P
.-