ML20116B127
| ML20116B127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1985 |
| From: | Lundvall A BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20116B130 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8504250057 | |
| Download: ML20116B127 (3) | |
Text
l A
BALTIMORE GAS AND t
ELECTRIC CHARLES CENTER P.O. BOX 1475 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 ARTHUR E. LUNDVALL. JR.
Vict PRE 54 DENT SUPPLY April 10,1985 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Mr. James R. Miller, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. 2; Docket No. 50-318 Request for Amendment
REFERENCE:
(a) BG&E letter from Mr. A.E. Lundvall, Jr. to Mr. J.R. Miller, dated February 22,1985, Unit 1 Cycle 8 License Application Gentlemen:
The Baltimore Gas and Electric Company hereby requests an Amendment to its Operating License No. DPR-69, for Calvert Cliffs Unit No. 2, with the submittal of the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications. The changes are essentially identical to those requested for Unit 1 by Reference (a).
PROPOSED CHANGE (BG&E FCR 85-3000, Supp.1)
Remove existing pages of the Unit 2 Technical Specifications and replace with attached marked up pages.
DISCUSSION The proposed Technical Specification changes are intended to provide increased flexibility ~ for acceptable flow balance test results.
This flexibility is obtained by reduction of analytic conservatisms which are not controlled by Technical Specifications, and by controlled Technical Specification revisions crediting charging pump flow delivery on a Safety Injection Actuation Signal. The changes and supporting discussion are provided in Table 1.
0Y s de g c (pM
/
00 W
8504250057 850410 PDR ADOCK 05000318 P
Mr. J.R. Mill r April 10,1985 Page 2 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS This proposed change to the Technical Specifications has been reviewed against the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 regarding significant hazard considerations and has been determined to involve no significant hazards considerations, in that operating in accordance with the proposed change would not:
(i) involve any increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the updated FinalSafety Analysis Report, since no actual system modifications will be effected.
No modification of plant equipment is made by this proposed change.
Consequences of accidents, specifically the Small Break Loss Of Coolant Accident, are not increased since there is no reduction in margin to fuel design limits. Non-Loss Of Coolant Accident safety analyses have been verified to remain valid with the proposed reduction in High Pressure Safety Injection flow.
(ii) create the possibility of occurrence of an accident different from an accident previously evaluated.
No modification of plant equipment is made by this proposed change.
Therefore, no new accident scenario is created. Evaluation of charging pump operation during Loss Of Coolant Accidents has shown no additional risk of adverse accident consequences.
(iii) involve any significant decrease in the margin of safety as described in the bases for Technical Specifications.
Peak clad temperature for the limiting Small Break Loss Of Coolant Accident using the revised High Pressure Safety Injection flow specification is 1877 F vs.1940 F using the current High Pressure Safety Injection flow requirement. No other accidents are adversely affected.
Therefore, the margin of safety defined by the basis for Technical Specification 3.5.2 is not reduced.
The proposed change applies a previously used calculational model or design method.
Also, the change incorporates additional limitations, restrictions, and controls not currently included in the Technical Specifications.
As such, it is consistent with examples of amendments considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations as shown in Federal Register Notice 14870 dated April 6,1983, examples (ii) and (vi).
SAFETY COMMITTEE REVIEW This proposed change to the Technical Specifications and our determination of significant hazards have been reviewed by our Plant Operations and Offsite Safety Review Committees, and they have concluded that implementation of this change will not result in an undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
A
l Mr. 3. R. Miller April 10,1985
. Page 3 FEE DETERMINATION Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.21, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company check number A303665 in the amount of $150.00 is remitted to cover the application fee for this request.
Very truly ylours,s
{,,/
/
I l
c;pce/cw. 7 Ai ~
STATE OF MARYLAND :
TO WIT:
CITY OF BALTIMORE Arthur E. Lundvall, Jr., being duly sworn states that he is Vice President of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, a corporation of the State of Maryland; that he provides the foregoing response for the purposes therein set forth; that the statements made are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief; and that he was authorized to provide the response on behalf of said Corporation.
WITNESS my Hand and Notarial Seal:
b.LM E,.-..s Notary Public F
My Commission Expires:
1[ /r(
//
AEL/3FW/jcs Enclosure cc: D.A. Brune, Esquire G.F. Trowbridge, Esquire D.H. Jaffe, NRC T. Foley, NRC T. Magette, DNR
-_: