ML20198G579
| ML20198G579 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1997 |
| From: | Hood D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198G585 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9801130068 | |
| Download: ML20198G579 (4) | |
Text
__ _
I a
e f
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSIDN RALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 ENVIP.0 MENTAL A$$($f, MENT AND FINDING _Of N0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DOCKET NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 2, ' Design Basis for Protection Against Natural Phenomena," to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (the licensee), for operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, located in Calvert County, Maryland.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Prooosed Action:
The proposed exemption would allow relief from General Design Criterion 2 (GDC-2) during the upgrading of the Unit 1 emergency diesel generator (EDG)
No. 18. The proposed examption will permit the temporary removal of two steel doors which provide protection for the EDG No.18, which will be out of service to allow modifications which will increase its load capacity, and also l
provides protection to the operating Calvert Cliffs Unit No. 2 EDG No. 2A and the support systems common to Unit 1 EDG IB and the operating Unit 2 EDGs 2A and 28. The support systems are required to be operable to support the operation of Unit 2.
The upgrading of the Unit 1 EDG No.1B will be performed during the upctr.ing Unit I refueling outage (RFO-14).
RF0 14 is scheduled to commence on April 3, 1998, and be completed in early June 1998.
The two steel missile 9001130068 971223 DR ADOCK O 37
l e
,.. doors will be required to be removed about 4 times during the outage. Only one door will be removed at a time. Tht licensee estimates that each of the removals will last for about 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, which will result in a total removal time of about 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> during the scheduled 60-day RFO-14 The Need for the Proposed Actioni, The proposed temporary exemption 15 needed to permit the con.pletion of the highly desirable upgrade to the Unit 1 EDG No.1B without an unnecessary unit shutdown.
Environmental Imoacts of the ProDosed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed action involves features located entirely within the protected area as defir d in 10 CFR Part 20.
The proposed action will not result in an increase in the probability or consequences of accidents or result in a change in occupational or offsite dose. There' ore, there are no radiological impacts associated with the proposed action.
The proposed action will not result in a change in nonradiological plant effluents and will have no other nonradiological environmental impact.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no environmental impacts associated with this action.
Alternatives to the Probosed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application would result in no chango in current environmental impa:ts.
(,
3 The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
The principal alternative to requesting the temporary exemption for implementation of the EDG upgrade would be to comply with the restrictive requirements of GDC-2. However, the alternative would not significantly enhance the protection of the environment and would result in significant loss of power generation since a dual unit o ' age would be required.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement dated April 1973 for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on October 2,1997, the staff consulted with the Maryland State official, Richard J. McLean of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, regarding the envirormental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the Corrmission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
' licensee's letter dated September 12, 1997, as supplemented November 3,1997, which are available for public inspection at the Commissior.'s Public Dccament Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the
- - ~ _.. - -
t
'[
- ocal public document ronilocated at the Calvert County Library, Prince Frederick, Maryland.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23d day of December 1997.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' #[
Darl S. Hood, Acting Director Project Directorate I-l Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regule.iion
-~g.
,ew-y v