ML20155F392
| ML20155F392 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1986 |
| From: | Tiernan J BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155F396 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.F.1, TASK-TM GL-83-37, NUDOCS 8604220111 | |
| Download: ML20155F392 (13) | |
Text
r '-
v
?
(A.
BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC CHARLES CENTER R O. BOX 1475 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 JOSEPH A.TIERNAN Vict ParslDENT NucLEAm ENERQY l
April 14,1986 l
l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D. C. 20555 ATTENTION:
Mr. Ashok C. Thadani, Director PWR Project Directorate t/8 Division of PWR Licensing-B
SUBJECT:
Calvert Clifis Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos.1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318 Request for Amendment
REFERENCES:
(a)
Letter from Mr. A. E. Lundvall, Jr. (BG&E), to Mr. 3. R. Miller (NRC), dated April 10,1985 l
(b)
Letter from Mr. A. E. Lundvall, Jr. (BG&E), to Mr. R. A. Clark (NRC), dated November 5,1982 f
(c)
Letter from Mr. A. E. Lundvall, Jr. (BG&E), to Mr. 3. R. Miller
{
(NRC), dated September 16,1983 l
(d)
Letter from Mr. D. H. Jaffe (NRC) to Mr. A. E. Lundvall, Jr.
(BG&E), dated November 17,1983 l
(e)
Letter from Mr. A. E. Lundvall, Jr. (BG&E), to Mr. 3. R. Miller (NRC), dated December 22,1983 (f)
Letter from Mr. D. H. Jaffe (NRC), to Mr. A. E. Lundvall, Jr.,
(BG&E), dated April 19 1984 Gentlemen:
The Baltimore Gas and Electric Company hereby requests an Amendment to its Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69 for Calvert Cliffs Unit Nos.1 & 2, respectively, with the submittal of the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications.
CHANGE NO.1, (BG&E FCR 86-28)
Change page 3/4 1-9 of the Unit No. 1 Technical Specifications as shcwn on the marked-up copies attached to this transmittal.
d4 8604220111 860414 PDR ADOCK 05000317 P
PDR l
R:. ' Minimum level indication mark, and.51/4"above maximum level indication mark" for the long-term.
Current Technical Specification limits are "between the minimum and maximum level indication marks."
Justification: If the electrolyte level is at or near the maximum level indication mark at float voltage, it may rise above that mark on charge. This condition will not affect safety or capacity unless the cell reaches an electrolyte overflow condition.
o Mr. Ashok C. Thadani April 8,1986 Page 11 o
The short-term limit for individual cell voltage would be 2.07 volts vice the current 2.10 volts limit.
Justification: Internal cell problems are not indicated until cell voltage decreases to 2.07 volts. Hence, overall battery capability would be adequate in the short-term as long as all individual cell voltages are above this level.
In addition, since prolonged operation of cells below 2.13 volts can reduce the life expectancy of cells, the long-term limit is proposed to be raised to 2.13 volts from 2.10 volts, o
The specifications which now limit the amount that individual cell voltage has decreased since the latest performance discharge test, and the amount that individual cell specific gravity has decreased since the previous quarterly measurement would be deleted.
Justification: A decrease in individual cell voltage or specific gravity during the time period since a previous test is not indicative of overall battery capability. A better indication of overall battery capability, using specific gravity, is the individual cell deviation from the average of all connected cells, and the deviation of the average of all connected cells from the nominal average (1.215). Limits on these deviations are incorporated in this proposal.
o The limit on individual cell specific gravity would be changed from 1.200 to 1.195.
Justification: The guidance in IEEE Standard I+50-1980 allows individual cell specific gravity to be less than the average for all connected cells by.01, and allows the average specific gravity for all connected cells to decrease by.01 from the nominal average 4
(1.215), before an equalizing charge is required.
Hence, the appropriate limit for individual cell specific gravity is 1.195. In i
addition, the long-term limit on the average specific gravity for all connected cells is proposed to be raised to 1.205 from 1.200.
o The dummy load profile, used to simulate the design duty cycle during battery service tests, would be deleted from the Technical Specifications.
Justification:
The dummy load profile is controlled adminis-tratively in _the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. If the profile were not in the Technical Specifications, changes to the l
Technical Specifications would not be necessary when the emergency loads on the battery are modified.
I-E 4
l-
Mr. Ashok C. Thadani April 8,1986 Page 12 o
Performance of the battery service test would not be required at 60-month intervals when a performance discharge test is also required.
Justification: Currently, the Technical Specifications require a performance discharge test to be done subsequent to the battery service test every 60 months. The performance discharge test is a more stringent test and is sufficient, by itself, to demonstrate that the battery meets design requirements. Elimination of the battery service test, when the performance discharge test is performed, reduces unnecessary testing and would contribute to battery life expectancy.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS This proposed change has been evaluated against the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 and has been determined to involve no significant hazards considerations, in that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
(i) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or The proposed surveillance program would continue to assure the capability of the 125-volt DC Batteries to provide emergency power during the design load cycle. All appropriate battery parameters would be controlled within proper limits and monitored at adequate frequencies. In addition, elimination of the battery service test at 60-month intervals would not decrease the effectiveness of requirements to demonstrate battery capability since a more stringent test is performed at that time.
(ii) create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or This proposal does not involve a modification to plant equipment or a change in system configuration. The procedural changes involved do not create the possibility of new or different accidents.
(iii) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Since this proposal would continue to assure the capability of the 125-volt DC Batteries to provide emergency power during the design load cycle, no margin of safety would be significantly reduced.
Mr. Ashok C. Thadani April 8,1986 Page 13 i
SAFETY COMMITTEE 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 Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.21, we are including BG&E Check No. (1043947) in the amount of
$150.00 to the NRC to cover the application fee for this request.
Very truly yours,
,e kaead-STATE OF MARYLAND :
TO WIT:
CITY OF BALTIMORE :
Joseph A. Tiernan, 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:
i. J k,' < c...,. ___.
Notary Public
-:[,ff L (Cn ~ c_.
p /9 d My Commission Expires:
Date JAT/BEH/MTF/ dim Attachments cc:
D. A. Brune, Esquire J. E. Silberg, Esquire D. H. Jaffe, NRC T. Foley, NRC T. Magette, DNR