ML18142C026

Letter Submitting Information to Present Technical Specifications and the Proposed Technical Specification Changes

ML18142C026
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	10/28/1974
From:	White L Rochester Gas & Electric Corp
To:	Case E US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
References
Download: ML18142C026 (6)

Text

AEC DISTRIBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL (TEMPORARY FORM)

CONTROL NOU 2~2 FILE FR'OM:Rochester Gas

& Elec Co pDATE OF DOC Rochester, N.Y.

l0 28 74 DATE REC'D LTR ll"1-74 xxxx TWX RPT OTHER TO:

Hr. Edson G.Case ORIG l-signed CC OTHER SENT. AEC PDR xxxxxx SENT LOCAL PDR CLASS UNCLASS PROPINFO XXXXXXXX DESC R I PTION:

INPUT NO CYS REC'D ENCLOSURES:

DOCKET NO:

50>>244 Ltr submitting 'additional infromation to the Tech-Specs'~

. ~..

DO NOT iTLi"iOVE PL'ANT NAME: RE

'E Ginna gl BUTLER (L)

W/ Copies CLARK (L)

W/ Copies PARR (L)

W/ Copies KNIEL (L)

W/ Copies REGAN (E)

W/ Copies LEAR (L)

W/ Copies SCHWENCER (L)

W/ Copies STOLZ (L)

W/ Copies VASSALLO (L)

W/ Copies

/PURPLE (L)

~W Copies ZIEMANN(L)

W/ Copies DICKER (E)

W/ Copies KNIGHTON (E)

W/ Copies YOUNGBLOOD (E)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies INTERNALDISTRIBUTION FOR ACTION/INFORMATION ll"4 74 JGlI EG C PDR GC, ROOM P-506A

~UNTZING/STAFF CASE GIAMBUSSO BOYD OORE (L) (BWR)

EYOUNG (L) (PWR)

SKOVHOLT (L)

GOLLER (L)

P. COLLINS DENISE

/BEG OPR

~ F I LE 5 REGION (3)

MOR RIS STEELE TECH REVIEW SCHROEDER MACCARY KNIG HT PAWLICKI SHAO STELLO HOUSTON NOVAK ROSS IPPO LITO TEDESCO LONG LAINAS BENAROYA VO LIMER DENTON GRIMES GAMMILL KASTNER BALLARD SPANGLER ENVIRO MULLER DICKER KNIGHTON YOUNG8 LOOD REGAN PROJECT LDR z~av 4 HAR LESS LIC ASST DIGGS (L)

GEAR IN (L)

GOULBOURNE (L)

KREUTZER (E)

LEE (L)

MAIGRET (L)

REED (E)

ERVICE (L)

SHEPPARD (L)

SLATER(E)

SMITH (L)

TEETS (L)

WI LLIAMS (E)

WI LSON (L)

A/T IND BRAITMAN SALTZMAN B. HURT PLANS

MCDONALD, CHAPMAN WUBEee5~

E. COUPE D. THOMPSON (2)

KLECKER EISENHUT EXTERNALDISTRIBUTION LOCALPDR L ons N Y~, Rochester, N.Y.

TIC (ABERNATHY)

(1)(2)(10) NATIONALLABS NSIC (BUCHANAN) 1 ASLBP(E/W Bldg, Rm 529) 1 ASLB 1

W. PENNINGTON, Rm E-201 GT 1 Newton Anderson 1

85M SWINEBROAD, Rm E-201 GT

~ ACRS HOLDING $,+jp g 1 CONSULTANTS

~(~ ~g~~

p~~p~~g~ NEWMARK/BLUME/AGBABIAN 1 PD R-SAN/LA/NY 1 BROOKHAVEN NAT LAB 1 G. ULRIKSON, ORNL 1 AGMED (RUTH GUSSMAN)

Rm 8-127 GT 1

1 R. D. MUELLER, Rm E-201 GT

~

~

C

~

~

~

~

~ ~

~

~

~

IIIIISi7 1 hID,~

~(zzzz ZX8 tulilii1iVi ROCHESTER GAS A

'0 "~'(

L.ECTRIC CORP R

lON o

89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.Y. 14649 TKLCPHOHC ARCA CODE TIO 546-2700 October 28, 1974 d

gag/tI(

<4>~

<<<<<<<<y ZiI<<Id'djld<<

Mr. Edson G. Case, Acting Director Directorate of Licensing U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C.

20545 File 6y'e juster J'ear Mr. Case:

Xn response to a letter from Karl E. Goller dated October 2, 1974 we have reviewed our present Technical Specifications and the proposed Technical Specification changes and evaluation submitted in accordance with Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50.

Further, the proposed Technical Specifications are consistent, with Section 50.46 requirements and the evaluation shows compliance with Appendix K.

We find no instance where it is physically impossible to comply with both sets of specifications.

We have,

however, found three instances where proposed specifications are slightly less restrictive than presently approved specifications.

These three instances are described

+

below.

In the presently approved Specification 3.10.2.2 the last sentence reads:

"Xf the hot channel factors can-not be reduced below the limiting values within one day, the Overpower sT trip set point and the Overtemperature b T set. point shall be similarly reduced."

A similar limit is not included in the proposed change.

Until our proposed change is acted

upon, we will include, administra-tively, the condition that if the hot channel factors can-not be reduced below the full power limits within one day, the Overpower a T trip set point and the Overtemperature

> T trip set point shall be reduced by one percent for each per-cent which F ~g or Fg exceeds the full power limit, which-ever is more restrictive.

Specification 3.10.2.7 in the present Technical Specifications requires monthly flux maps when operating above 75% of rated power and no flux mapping while below 75% power.

The proposed specification would require map-ping at effective full power monthly intervals.

Until the proposed change is acted

upon, we will take flux maps monthly while above 75% power and will take flux maps at effective full power monthly intervals while below 75% power.

t r

J ji E

, ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORP.

sArE

. qctober 28, 1974 Po g'AX'. Edson G. Case 8

SHEET NO. 2 The present Specification 3.10.2.6 places limits on the allowable delta flux as a function of power level.

For negative values of delta flux the proposed limits are considerably= more restrictive.

For example, at 90% of rated power, the present limit is -23% while the proposed limit is -ll%.

For positive values of.delta flux below 90% power, the proposed limit permits operation with a delta flux which is 1% more positive than does the presently approved limit. Until our proposed change is acted upon, we will comply with the proposed specifications with the exception that the limiting values for positive values of flux difference will be

+10% at 90% power increasing by +1%

for each 2% of rated power below 90$ power.

The interim measures have been implemented.

There have been no instances in which plant operation has exceeded presently approved Technical Specifications while complying with changes proposed in the Technical Specifications as a

result of the evaluation required by Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50.

Plant operation within the limits of the proposed Technical Specification with the three modifications listed above results in compliance with and provides a greater margin of safety than the requirements of the Xnterim Acceptance Criteria.

Very truly yours, p MAP Vice President Electric 6 Steam Production

~

~