ML17191B414
| ML17191B414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 08/03/1999 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17191B413 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9908100262 | |
| Download: ML17191B414 (9) | |
Text
-/
Attachment B Marked Up Pages and Inserts for the Dresden Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications n
9908100262 990803
~
PDR ADOCK 05000237
. ; p -
-- --- -- -~°-~--- '-----,---- -
. (
SAFETY LIMITS 2.1 2.0 SAFETY LIMITS AND LIMITING SAFETY SYSTEM SETTINGS 2.1 SAFETY LIMITS THERMAL POWER, Low Pressure or Low Flow 2.1.A THERMAL POWER shall not exceed 25% of RATED THERMAL POWER with the reactor vessel steam dome pressure less than 785 psig or core flow less than 10% of rated flow.
APPLICABILITY: OPERATIONAL MODE(s) 1 and 2.
ACTION:
With THERMAL POWER exceeding 25% of RATED THERMAL POWER and the reactor vessel steam dome pressure less than 785 psig or core flow less than 10% of rated flow, be in at least HOT SHUTDOWN within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and comply with the requirements of Specification 6.7.
-th~
(' o LI o lP 1 VI~ :
I / l U d l-CJCI *-'or c.yd~ e...x:p<l1<5111.V'i'S. )es.:i -Wl<t\\I\\
DY' eql.lq,I
-t-O 13/o~-:-/YIWct/~IT qn 1*17' felr e.ycle e_t.posut<e<J. ~V'ea-teV' -t"1<111 ts,-tSoo MWd/M1'IA./f5':t'ia>1cl
- ) THERMAL POWER, High Pressure and High Flow
- 2.
.B The MINIMUM CRITICAL POWER RATIO (MCPRl shall not be less than r
1.09 for Unit ith the reactor vessel steam dome pressure greater than or equal to 78 ps1g and
~- ~ore flow greater than or equal to 10% of rated flow. During single recirculation loop operation, this MCPR limit shall be increased by 0.01.
+he APPLICABILITY: OPERATIONAL MODE(s) 1 and 2.
ACTION:
With MCPR less than the above applicable limit and the reactor vessel steam dome pressure greater than or equal to 785 psig and core flow greater than or equal to 10% of rated flow, be in at least HOT SHUTDOWN within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and comply with the requirements of Specification 6.7.
DRESDEN - UNITS 2 & 3 2-1 Amendment Nos/~
Reporting Requirements 6.9 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS (12)
ANF-1125 (P)(A), ANFB Critical Power Correlation Determination of ATRIUM-98 Additive Constant Uncertainties, Supplement 1, Appendix E, Siemens Power* Corporation, September 1998.
- c.
The core operating lir:nits report shall be determined so that all applicable limits (e.g., fuel thermal-mechanical limits, core thermal-hydraulic limits, ECCS limits, nuclear limits such as shutdown margin, and transient and accident analysis limits) of the safety analysis are met. The CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT, including any mid-cycle revisions of supplements thereto shall be provided on issuance, for each reload cycle, to the NRC Document Control Desk with copies to the Regional Administrator and Resident Inspector.
- 6. 9. 8 Special Reports Special reports shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator of the NR'C Regional Offic.e...
within the time period specified for each report.
6.10 (INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
(IS) EMF..:..g5-74 CP), RDDEX2A U3WR) i-u.t.I Rod. Therrnt(. I M tch([.11/u.../ f;.vAI u0-h'v11-,M or/.LI, Su..pPleme.tt.+ I lP)(A) alt..d-.Su.pplemertf z (PX.A-) ) s i emlnS Po£..L)U' Corpora..h"tJYL, fe.b ru..tt~ / '1q ~.
DRESDEN - UNITS 2 & 3 6-16 Amendment Nos. y( I
Attachment C I
Evaluation Supporting a Finding of No Significant Hazards
.. Consideration
ATTACHMENT C EVALUATION SUPPORTING A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS
- C.
EVALUATION SUPPORTING A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS ComEd has evaluated the proposed Technical Specification changes and determined the changes support a finding of no significant hazards consideration. Based on the criteria for defining a significant hazard consideration established in 10 CFR 50.92(c), Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3, in accordance with the proposed amendments, will not represent a significant hazards consideration for the following reasons:
These changes do not:
- 1.
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by
- the operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those consequences. Limits have been established consistent 'with NRC-approved methods to ensure that fuel performance during normal, transient, and accident conditions is acceptable. These changes do not affect the operability of plant systems, nor do they compromise any fuel performance limits.
Changing the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) Safety Limit (SL) at Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 2 will not increase the probability or the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. This change implements the MCPR SL resulting from the Siemens Power Corporation (SPC) ANFB critical power correlation methodology using the approved ATRTIJM-9B additive constant uncertainty. For each cycle, specific MCPR SL calculations will be performed, consistent wit~ SPCs approved methodology, to confirm the appropriateness of the MCPR SL. Additionally, operational MCPR limits will be applied that will ensure the MCPR SL is not vi~lated during all modes of operation and anticipated operational occurrences. The MCPR SL ensures that less than 0.1 % of the rods in the core are expected to experience boiling transition. Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident will not increase.
- Adding EMF-85-74, Revision 0, Supplements 1 and 2 (P)(A) to Section 6 for Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3, does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The NRC-approved bumup extension for RODEX2A applications has been demonstrated to meet all applicable design criteria. Therefore, adding this methodology to Technical Specification Section 6 does not increase to the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Attachment C Pagel of 3
ATTACHMENT C EVALUATION SUPPORTING A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS
- 2.
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated:
Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of accident would require the creation of one or more new precursors of that accident. New accident precursors may be created by modifications to the plant configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation. This Technical S.pecification submittal does not involve any modifications to the plant configuration or allowable modes of operation. No new precursors of an accident are created and no new or different kinds of accidents are created. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Changing the MCPR SL does not create the possibility of a new accident from any accident previously evaluated. This change does not alter or add any new equipment or change modes of operation. The MCPR SL is established to ensure that 99. 9% of the rods avoid boiling transition.
The MCPR SL is changing for Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 2 to support Cycle 17 operation. This change does not introduce any physical changes to the plant, the processes used to operate the plant, or allowable modes of operation. Therefore, no new accidents are created that are different from any accident previously evaluated.
The addition ofRODEX2A (EMF-85-74, Revision 0, Supplements 1 and 2 (P)(A)) to Section 6 does not create the possibility of a new accident from an accident previously evaluated. This change does not alter. or add any new equipment or change modes of operation. This change does not introduce any physical changes to the plant, the processes used to operate the plant, or allowable modes of operation. Therefore, no new accidents are created that are different from any accident previously evaluated.
- 3.
Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety for the following reasons:
Changing the MCPR SL for Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 2 will not involve any reduction in margin of safety. The MCPR SL provides a margin of safety by ensuring that less than 0. 1 % of the rods are calculated to be in boiling transition. The proposed Technical Specification amendment request reflects the MCPR SL results from evaluations by SPC using NRC-approved methodology.
Because the methodology used to determine the MCPR SL is conservative and has received NRC approval, a decrease in the margin to safety will not occur due to changing the MCPR SL. The revised MCPR SL will ensure the appropriate level of fuel protection.
Additionally, operational limits will be established based on the proposed MCPR SL to ensure that the MCPR SL is not violated during all applicable modes of operation Attachment C Page 2 of3
ATTACHMENT C EVALUATION SUPPORTING A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS including anticipated operation occurrences. This will ensure that the fuel design safety criterion of more than 99. 9% of the fuel rods avoiding transition boiling during normal operation as well as during an anticipated operational occurrence is met.
The addition ofEMF-85-74, Revision 0, Supplements 1 and 2 (P)(A) to Section 6 does not decrease the margin of safety. The burnup limit extension for RODEX2A applications has been reviewed and approved by the NRC. The data supporting the burnup extension demonstrates that all applicable design criteria are met. Therefore, since the burnup extension is acceptable and within the design criteria, using the approved burnup extension will not affect the margin of safety.
Attachment C Page 3of3
Attachment D Environmental Assessment Applicability Review
D.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPLICABILITY REVIEW ComEd has evaluated the proposed Technical Specification amendment request against the criteria for identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessment in accordance with 10 CFR 51.21. It has been determined that the proposed changes meet the criteria for categorical exclusion as provided for under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). This conclusion has been determined because the change requested does not pose significant hazards considerations and does not involve a significant increase in the amounts, and no significant changes in the types of any effluents that may be released off-site. Additionally, this request does not involve a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Attachment D Pagel of l