ML20080A518

Suppl 1 to 831222 Application for Amend to License DPR-69 Re Changes to Tech Specs Resulting from Determination That Generic Steam Line Break Analysis Performed for Unit 1 Cycle 7 Applicable to Unit 2

ML20080A518
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	01/27/1984
From:	Lundvall A BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20080A519	List: ML20080A518 ML20080A534
References
NUDOCS 8402060098
Download: ML20080A518 (3)

Text

.

BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC

\

CHARLES CENTER P.O. BOX 1475 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 ARTHun E. LUNDVALL. JR.

vice PncstDENT SUPPLY January 27,1984 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Operating Reactors Branch #3 Attention: Mr. J.R. Miller Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-318 Amendment to Operating License DPR-69, Supplement 1

REFERENCE:

(1) BG&E Letter from Mr. A.E. Lundvall, Jr., to Mr. J.R. Miller, dated December 22,1983, Request for Amendment, Units 1 and 2.

(2) BG&E Letter from Mr. A.E. Lundvall, Jr. to Mr. R.A. Clark, dated September 1, 1983, Supplement I to Seventh Cycle License Application.

(3) NRC Letter from Mr. D. II. Jaffe, to Mr. A.E. Lundvall, Jr., dated November 17, 1983, Amendment No. 88 to Facility Operating License for DPR-53 for Calvert Cliffs No.1.

Gentlemen:

The Baltimore Gas & Electric Company hereby supplements an earlier request for amendment (Reference 1) with the submittal of the enclosed proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for Calvert Cliffs Unit No. 2. The proposed changes result from the determination that the generic steam line break analysis performed for Unit 1 Cycle 7 (Reference 2)is applicable to Unit 2 for the current and the next cycle.

The proposed Technical Specifications are identical to those issued for Unit 1 Cycle 7 by Amendment No. 88 (Reference 3). They would, o permit a more negative Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC),

o permit a less restrictive Shutdown Margin requirement, o help accommodate the more negative MTC now projected for Unit 2 Cycle 5 by recent measurements made at 300 PPM, and o allow a negative finding under 10 CFR 50.59 for Unit 2 Cycle 6.

gooI 8402060098 840127 PDR ADOCK 05000318 P PDR 1

a Mr. J.R. Miller -

January 27,1984 Page 2 CHANGE (BG&E FCR 84-3000)

Remove existing pages 3/4 1-1, 3/4 1-5 and B 3/4 1-1 of the Unit 2 Technical Specifications and replace with attached, marked up pages 3/41-1, 3/41-5, and B 3/41-1; attachment 1 of this transmittal.

DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS We have determined that the proposed Technical Specification changes involve no significant hazards consideration under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92.

This means that the operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed changes would not (1) involve significant increases in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility for a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in margin to safety.

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of these standards (48 FR 14870) by providing certain examples of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations. Example (vi) is quoied balcw.

...(vi) A change which either may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously-analyzed accident or may reduce in some way a safety margin, but where the results of the change are clearly within all acceptable criteria with respect to the system or component specified in the Standard Review Plan: for example, a change resulting from the application of a small refinement of a previously used calculational model or design method."

Item (vi) applies in that although these changes may result in a minor reduction in the margin of safety as defined by the Technical Specifications, the evaluation of the results of these changes demonstrates that all acceptance criteria with respect to the Standard Review Plan are clearly met. The changes result from the application of Hermite methodology to Unit 2.

The events directly affected by the proposed changes are the Steam Line Break (SLB) events. The consequences of SLB events for Unit 2 Cycles 5 & 6 have been demonstrated to be bounded by the SLB analyses performed in support of the Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 Cycle 7 Reload License Application. The Unit 1 Cycle 7 SLB analyses were performed using approved Hermite methodology.

Other Unit 2 cycles 5 & 6 safety analyses whose results hinge upon MTC and Shutdown Margin assume values that are equal to or more limiting than the proposed Technical Specifications values and as such need not be reevaluated.

On this basis, we believe that the proposed Technical Specification changes do not involve significant hazards considerations.

= . .

Mr. J.R. Miller January 27,1984 Page 3 SAFETY COMMFITEE REVIEW These proposed changes to the Technical Specifications and our determination of significant hazards have been reviewed by our Plant Operations and Off-Site Safety Review Committees, and they have concluded that implementation of these changes will not result in an undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

FEE DETERMINATION For fee determination purposes, we request you consider this change to be a supplement to our request dated December 22,1983.

Yours very truly, a'

jzM/cc<c

~

/ -

• d<txt AEL/MEB/jes ec: J.A. Biddison, Jr., Esq.

G.F. Trowbridge, Esq.

Mr. D.H. Jaffe, NRC Mr. R.E. Architzel, NRC Mr. T. Magette, DNR Mr. R.R. Mills, Combustion Engineering i

l l

l l

l

-- -_