ML20198K551
| ML20198K551 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198K550 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9801150038 | |
| Download: ML20198K551 (3) | |
Text
. -
e-p%*%
lt UNITED STATES p-_
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- t WASHINGTON. D.C. 3066H001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO224TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-53 BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-317
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 2,1997, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 emergency diesel generator (EDG)
- 18. BGE intends to upgrade 1B EDG to increase its electrical capacity by increasing the mechanical capacity of the engine. The modifications are to be performed during the next refueling outage. The modification willincrease the electrical rating of 1B EDG, thereby providing additional margin for the electrical loading of the 4.16 kV Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) bus.
This proposed change revises TS Surveillance Requirements 4.8.1.1.2.a.5,4.8.1.1.2.d 4, and 4.8.1.1.2.d.5 to reflect the new electrical capacity for 1B EDG.
2.0 EVALUATION Calvert Cliffs is a two unit site. The plant has four safety-related EDGs, two dedicated to each unit. Three of the EDGs are Fairbanks Morse diesels, the fourth EDG is manufactured by SACM of France. Unit 2 has two Fairbanks Morse EDGs 2A and 28. Both of the Unit 2 EDGs had their electrical capacity upgraded in previous outages. The current Unit 2 TS reflect this increase in electrical capacity.
The licensee is proposing to modify 1B EDG to increase its electrical capacity from 2700 kW to 3000 kW for its continuous rating and from 3000 kW to 3300 kW for its 2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> rating thereby providing additional margin for the electricalloading of the 4.16kV ESF bus 14.
The mechanical capacity of the engine will also be upgraded to support the increased electrical capacity. This will result in all three Fairt>anks Morse EDGs having the same electrical and mechanical ratings and, therefore, the same surveillance requirements. The electrical capacity of the Unit 2 EDGs was also upgraded. The licensee's qualification program for upgrading the existing Unit 2 EDGs was approved by the staff by letter dated April 2,1996. The licensee plans to qualify the 1B EDG to the upgraded rating in accordance with the NRC-approved testing program during the 1998 refueling outage.
Additionally, the licensee states that since the fuel oil consumption rates forming the basis for the proposed TS have previously been based upon the conservative assumption that all three EDGs have been upgraded no change to this specification is required.
In order to reflect the correct rating of EDG's electrical capacity in the Unit 1 TS, the licensee has proposed changes to MI Surveillance Requirements 4.8.1.1.2.a.5,4.8.1.1.2.d.4 and 4.8.1.1.2.d.5 as follows:
9801150038 900105 PDR ADOCK 05000317 P
2 Surveillance Reauirement 4.8.1.2.a.5 The surveillance currently requires 1B EDG to be loaded to greater than or equal to 2250 kW (90% of continuous rating of the EDG). The proposed change will maintain the existing surveillance requirements (testing to 90% of the continuous rating). The surveillance requirement will be modified to require 10 EDG to be loaded to greater than or equal to 2700 kW (90% of 3000 kW). This change reflects the upgraded electrical capability of the EDG, This change in surveillance requirements is consistent with the changes previously approved for Unit
- 2. Based on the above, we find the proposed change to be acceptable.
Surveillance Reauirement 4.8.1.1.2 d.4 This surveillance currently requires that 1B EDG be tested at least once per refueling interval at greater than or equal to 2700 kW (2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> rating) for at least 60 minutes. The licensee proposes to test 1B EDG at 3000 kW (continuous rating). The change from the 2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> rating to the upgraded continuous rating is necessary to ensure that the testing performed is consistent with tho intent of the surveillance. The surveillance is intended to demonstrate the EDG's ability to carry an electrical load equal to the accident loading. The licensee stated that the proposed minimum test loading of 3000 kW for 1B EDG is greater than the calculated accident leads and will more clearly demonstrate the ability of the EDGs to perform their safety function. Currently 2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> rating it used because it more closely reflected the accident loading. With ine additional electrical capability of the upgraded 1B EDG, the continuous rating of 3000 kW is sufficient to demonstrate the EDG's accident loading capability. In eddition, this change makrs 1B EDG compatible with surveillances previously approved for Unit 2 EDGs. Based on the above, we find the proposed change to be acceptable.
Surveillance Reauirement 4,8.1.1.2 d.S This surveillance currently requires verification that the auto-connected loads do not exceed 4000 kW for 1A EDG or 2700 kW for 1B EDG at least per refueling interval. The licensee proposes changing the auto-connected load verification for 1B EDG to 3300 kW to reflect the change in the 2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> rating of the EDG. This change maintains the intent of the surveillance that the auto-connected loads do not exceed the 2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> rating of 1B EDG. Currently,2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> rating of 1B EDG is 2700 kW, with the proposed upgrade it will change to 3300 kW. The proposed change will also makr 1B EDG surveillance consistent with the identical surveillances for Unit 2 EDGs. Based on the above, we find the proposed change to be acceptable.
Based on the evaluation discussed above, the staff finds that the proposed change reflects the upgraded continuous rating of 1B EDG in surveillance requirements 4.8.1.2.a.5,4.8.1.1.2.d.4 and 4.8.1.1.2.d.5. The staff believes that after 1B EDG is qualified in accordance with the staff's previously approved testing program for Unit 2 EDGs, it will demonstrate adequate assurance of its capacity, capability and reliability to perform its safety function.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Maryland State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
F
. t
+*
4 2
I 3
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no sigr9ficant 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 signifmant hazards consideration, and there has been no pubic comment on such findmg (62 FR 69913) Accordingly, the amendment meeO 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 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 inirrical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Pri upal Contributor. O. Chopra Date: January 5, 1997 ll
,y r
.--.-e.
-