ML17254A392

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 4 to License DPR-18

ML17254A392
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	06/07/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML17254A391	List: ML17254A390 ML17254A392
References
NUDOCS 8506120321
Download: ML17254A392 (12)

Text

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.

TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.

DPR-18 ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION R.

E.

GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-244 INTRODUCTION By letter dated March 30,

1984, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E or licensee) requested an amendment to the Appendix A Technical Specifications appended to Provisional Operating License No.

DPR-18 for the R.

E.

Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.

The proposed changes would revise notification-and reporting requirements, as requested by NRC Generic Letter 83-43 dated December 19,

1983, to be consistent with the new requirements in 10 CFR Parts 50.72 and 50.73.

In addition, the changes would delete certain environmental qualifi-cation schedule and documentation requirements, which have been superseded by new requirements in 10 CFR Part 50.49.

A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity 'or Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal Re ister on May 23, 1984 (49 FR 21837).

No requests for hearing and no public comments were received.

Subsequently, on December 10, 1984, the Appendix A Technical Specifications was reissued in its entirety and appended to (full-term) Facility Operating License No.

DPR-18 for the R.

E.

Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.

Therefore, the proposed

changes, as originally requested, have been revised in format to be consistent with the reissued R.

E.

Ginna Technical, Specifications.

Also, two typograph-ical corrections were made to the original changes requested by

RGKE, as discussed with and agreed to by Dr.

R. Mecredy of the licensee's staff.

EVALUATION Currently, Administrative Controls Specification 6.9.2 "Reportable Occurrences" requires the licensee to report certain types of events either by prompt notification with written follow-up or in thirty day written reports.

The proposed revisions which bring the Ginna Technical Specifications in conformance with new requirements in 10 CFR Parts 50.72 and 50.73 include adding Definition 1. 19 "Reportable Event", deleting unnecessary and conflicting references to reporting requirements in the Limiting Conditions for Operations and Surveillance Requirements sections (or otherwise revising previous report-ing requirements in these sections),

and revising the Administrative Controls sections to reference 10 CFR Part 50.73 and to delete the previous reporting requirements, now unnecessary or conflicting.

~~O~12032g

~DR ggggg 8SOiOW osooozeai PDR,L~

Administrative Controls Specification 6.14 "Environmental gualification" describes the implementation schedule and records requirements for, environ-mental qualification of all safety-related electrical equipment in the facility.

Specification

6. 10.2.m requires records for environmental qualif-ication to be retained for the duration of the facility operating license.

The proposed revisions delete these requirements from the Technical Specifications, since schedule and documentation requirements for environmental qualification of electrical equipment are superseded by 10 CFR Part 50.49, which was effec-tive June 30, 1982.

The deletion of these requirements from the R.

E.

Ginna Technical Specifications is consistent with final rulemaking by the Commission, as published in the Federal Re ister on November 15, 1984 (49 FR 45114).

The staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications and concludes that these changes are administrative and do not involve any physical change to the plant's safety-related structures, systems or compon-ents.

Further, these changes do not increase the. likeli'hood of a malfunction of safety-related equipment, or increase the consequences of an accident previously analyzed or create the possibility of a malfunction different from those previously evaluated.

Therefore, based on the above, the staff finds the licensee requested changes'o revise event reporting requirements and environ-mental qualification schedule and documentation requirements to be acceptable.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves changes in recordkeeping, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements.

This amendment also involves changes in schedule requirements with respect to installation or use of facility electrical components located within the restricted

area, as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.

The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant change in the types, and no significant increase in the

amounts, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure.

The Commission has previously issued a

proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consid-eration and there has been no public comment on such finding.

Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (10).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environ-mental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in con-nection with the issuance of this amendment.

CONCLUSION The staff 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; and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

DATED:

June 7, 1985 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Donald R. Haverkamp, NRC Region I, and C. Miller prepared this Safety Evaluation.

~/ "

I

~

ih i;oc~ie I,

~in ~

LS05-85-05-056 VCASl.!NGTON, D. C. 2GSas

!"av 30, 1985 CENSE AUTHORITY FILE COPY UWI ED SIAIES

~UCL=AR RFGULATORY COMiv1ISSIE"y DO NOt REMO E Pommel

~~Ia

~a.nqE, m BPQ.- l8 Pr.

Roger li', Rober,

%tice President, E'ec+r'Tc and Stea~P. Production Rochester Gas II Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue c'OoheSter "ei VOrI:

i<649 I'ear 3'r.

Vober:

S'h.>> ECT:

L~

I T"0>'

I" O~.",AI10" PERiA<II!I'IG TO OEriflT

'QADI 0> 'iQT CHAII'IEL ","ACTORS P,e:

R.

E.

Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Bv letter dated July 17, 1984, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG8E),

submitted a request Tor an amendment to the P,.

E, Ginna f<uclear Power Plant Technical Specifications (TSl contained in Appendix A o Facility Operating L,icense

'lo. 0PR-18.

This rpnuest was subr,".itted to provide consistency in ".he basis Ior TS 2.

Cl;anges to basis sect-;ons nI TS do no-. reouire license amendments.

The staff has reviewed the proposed changes to the basis o< TS 2. 1 and as discussed in

.he enclosed Safety Evaluation finds them acceptable.

Enclosed are the revised pages which modifies the basis

<or TS 2. 1 in accordance with your request..

S incerely,

{lli. f, (+F,Cfr,r&~

'~ John A. 2wolinsI:i, Chief Ooe, ating Reactor s Branch

-;"5 Oivision o+ Licensing Encl osures:

1.

Revised Basis Paoes 2.

Sa etv Evaluation cc w/enclosures:

See next page

Yr. Roaer l!. Kober

<aches er Gas and Electric Corporation R.

E.

Ginna Nuclear Power Plant CC Harry H. Voigt, Esquire

LePoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and.tlacRae 1333 New Hampshire

Avenue, N.l!.

Suite 1100 l!ashington, D.C.

20036 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney Ger,eral E"'~~ironmental Protection Bureau l'e<<. vork S=.a,e Departmor t of La<<(

". l,'orld Trade Center Ve<<. York, New York 10047 Resident inspector R.E.

Ginna Plant c/o U.S.

NRC 1503 Lake Road

Ontario, New York 14519 Stanley B. Vlimberg, Esquire General Counsel

!'ew York State Energy Off-.'ce Agency Building 2

Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reaion I 0 fice 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 1850 P,idge Poad

Ontario, New Yorl,

]4519 Jay Punkleberaer Divisior o Policy Anal.ysis F~ P>arming New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region

'.I Office ATTN:

Regional Padiation Representative

?6 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007

'Darameter Curine'b cto operation.

Therefo

, "he observable parameter s, thermal power, reactor coolant temperature and pressure related "o B4:- through the N-3 and/o= 4~>-1 ~73 co=re'ation

he-e DNB correlations have been developed to predict ihe DNB flux and the loca"ion of DNB for axially un'orm and non-uniform heac flux distribut.ons.

The local DNB heat flux raiio, defined as the ratio of the heat flux that would cause DNB at a, particular core location to the local heat flux, is -indicative of the margin 70 Dl<'R.

A m 'mum value of the DNB ra i io q 5&bbR is speci ried so

-mat dur'ng steady state operation, normal operational transients and anticipated transi nts, there is a 95/ p obability at a 95/

conf'dence level thai DEB will not occur.

The curves of

.igure 2.1-1 represeni the loci of points of thermal power, coolant system pressure and average temperature for which this i

i i

t e

e minima DLiS value 's satisfied.

The area of safe operat'on is below these lines.

Since it. is possible to have somewhat greater enthalpy rise hot channel factors at part power than at, full,power due to the deeper control bezA insertion which is permitted at. pari power, a

conservative allowance has been made in obtaining the curves in

"igure 2.1-1 for an 'ncrease in.<< with decreasing power levels.

I Bod withdrawal block and load runback occurs before reactor trip set points are reached.

,-The Reactor Control and Protective System is desig..ed to prevent any ant'cipated combination of transient conditions or reactor coolant system temperature, pressure and thermal power level thai 2.1-2 Revised R5>'n

)goy

should result in there beino less than a

95, probabili.v at a 95

N'2)

~ eqse s A ~a< pr ~lay

( 1)

FSAR, Section 3.2.2

!2)

Safetv Evalua.ion for R.E.

Ginna Transition to 1< x 14 Optimized Fuel Assemblies, Mestinghouse Electric; Corporation, tIovemher 1983.

Pevised '4'

Qi"-

t UiV!7""DSTATis

,NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO>Y>hllSSi~id WASHINGTON, D. C. 2C555 SAFFTY EYALUATIIOH BY THE OFFICE OF HUCLFAP, REACTOR REGULATIOH SUPPORTING BASES

!;HA>%E ROCHESTER GAS A<<o ELECTRIC CDRPnRATIOH R.

E.

GIN<<A HUCLFAR PAlIER PLANT DOC,'.ET Hn.

50-24'.

0 INTPADUCTION I'v lette!. dated Julv 17,

1984, the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation

';"."=c E),

!icensee

=or the R.

".. Ginna Plant, submitted a reauesi (Pe 1) for an amendmen

. to the Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A

n Facility Operating License Ho.

DPR-18 to provide consistency in the bas~s for Technical Specification

2. 1.

In the amendment request for the Cycle 14 reload

{Ref. 2), the licensee 'had intended to delete ihe appropriate

~~rtir ns of gaaes

?,1.->

and ?.i.-3.

Tho inforr.ation on pages

9. 1-2 and

?. 1-3

~~~atifies

-.he nI'clear hot channel factors which formed the basis for the

-..revious sa-.e",y lini

curves, which are no lnnger applicable.

The correct basis is identified on the pages changed.

The purpose of the change, in which pages

2. 1-?.

and

2. 1-3 are to be removed and replaced bv new pages

?.. 1-2 and 2.i-3, is to remedy the inconsistency by deleting the incorrect in ormation on pages

?, 1-2 and

2. 1-3.

In addition, a revised reference to recognize the use of the Westinghouse optimized fuel assemblies is provided in the new page

?. 1-3.

It should be noted tha chanaes to basis sections of Technical Specifications do not require license am ndments.

2.0 EI!ALUATIOH The informatiI n on paces

?. 1-?

and

2. 1-3 of the current Technic-1 Specifications Basis has nuclear hot channel factors which the licensee has reauested to be deleted.

The correct values for the nuclear hot channel

.actors exist in the current Techn.cal Specifications in Section

3. 10.2.2 on page

3. 10-3 which were approved in Amendment 61 of the Provisional Operating License (POL).

The change is administrative in nature as the licensee did not explicitly identi y th s portion in its p'revious submitta 1 and therefore the HRC did not approve this change in the issuance of Amendment 61 of the POL dated hay i, 1984.

The licensee has also deleted obsolete references and substituted a reference for the current use of the Westinghouse optimized fuel assemblies.

The staff has found these changes acceptable.

I

. ~

< ~

1

~

j I

~ 0 CP'CLUS >Ot>

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed

above, that the reaues.ed chano'es to the basis section o= 2.1 are acceptable.

<.0 Pi;EREHCES Letter rom R.

1". Rober, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, to

".," on, V>C, Vuiy 17, 1984.

Le~ter

.=rex i'i. E, I',aier, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation to H.

R, Dentnn, tiRC, December 20, 1983.

5,6 A".KHQ'I'LEDG.:f!E.'(T H. Balukiian and C. Miller prepared this Safety Evaluation.

Dated:

t1ay 30, 1985.

'l

~